Hi brother Saller. Have you considered reaching out to collab in a video about the sacraments with the Lutheran minister Dr. Jordan B. Cooper? I think that would be a great idea. He really knows how to defend the communication of attributes.
The dominant and taught view held by Cranmer, Jewel, Hooker, and later into Jeremy Taylor, was Receptionism. Richard Hooker was very precise in this, speaking of the instrumental cause of the elements effecting the feeding upon Christ's true body and true blood within the heart by faith. His metaphysics put simply that "The effect is necessarily present within the cause".
Just found this site per my searches regarding the Eucharist views without previously knowing the Anglican view ! I’m a reformed soteriology Calvinist, but worshiping at a local Lutheran Church ( LCMS ) with three doctrine exceptions: 1) real body & blood presence; 2) baptismal regeneration; 3) loosing your salvation ( a non reformed election position ). Thanks for posting…
Dr Jordan Cooper has great videos on the debate between luther and Zwingli. Luther accuses Zwingli of being Nestorian because of denial of real body of christ in Eucharist.
Good stuff, brother. Importantly, Vermigli makes a helpful distinction. Our physical eating is a reception of the body and blood *as* an embodiment of faith (Oxford Disputation). So it's not the physical eating itself, but physical eating as an embodiment of faith; so the sacramental union between the body and blood and the bread and wine is a distinction that Vermigli (and Ridley for that matter) make. I'm with you on the Eucharist. Im somewhere between both views too. In some ways I honestly prefer the Lutheran view, but I also understand the denial that the wicked eat the body of Christ. Vermigli's view might be the best sort of compromise, insofar as we can affirm a merely sacramental eating in the wicked, and yet a true *reception* that only happens by faith.
I think it seems perfectly in line with the biblical witness that wickedness is punished by the reception of the body. So why is it hard to grapple with the wicked taking part?
@@cooperthatguy1271 Hey Cooper. Anglo Catholic here. I’ve not ironed out the specifics of my view yet, but broadly speaking, I affirm that Christ is bodily present, and that the wicked do partake to their demise. I personally would say a straightforward reading of 1 Corinthians backs that up, yet since I used to hold a more receptionist view, I can still see where that is coming from. I no longer agree with it, but I totally get it.
I'm reformed and I have this same issue as you have. Though, Lutheran eucharistic doctrine seems reasonable and more aligned with Patristic view, yet Lutheran Christology feels a little odd (All respect to my brothers Lutherans.. I heavily love, respect and appreciate you all). I'm struggling with this right now.
What are your thoughts on the validity of the lords supper in Evangelical protestant circles in general and what are your particular sensibilities about partaking and it’s efficacy if you were visiting such a Church? Also, I’m curious if you’re familiar of any writings that speak to this from the founding bishops of the REC.
I would be doubtful of sacramental efficacy in Evangelical contexts. Partly because they do not have valid orders, and secondly because they outright reject the idea of sacraments. If I were to visit an Evangelical Church, I would not partake. The founding bishops of the REC would have been much more friendly to the question of sacraments in non-sacramental communities, but have since become far more catholic under Bishop Sutton.
Your job now is to root out all of this agreement with Reformed theology if you truly want to be Catholic. Stick with Luther (I say that as a non-Lutheran).
All I tell Roman Catholics is if Christ had bled himself into the cup and cut his body into a dish at the Passover then they have a case. When Christ talks about eating His Body he is saying we should have faith in him. Faith in Hebrew means literally to take and eat. Drinking His Blood means accepting the Divine Life He came to bring. It has symbolic and salvific
Hi brother Saller. Have you considered reaching out to collab in a video about the sacraments with the Lutheran minister Dr. Jordan B. Cooper? I think that would be a great idea. He really knows how to defend the communication of attributes.
You beat me to it. As Eastern Orthodox I enjoy Dr Coopers info. Lutherans very similar to EO in some respects
The dominant and taught view held by Cranmer, Jewel, Hooker, and later into Jeremy Taylor, was Receptionism. Richard Hooker was very precise in this, speaking of the instrumental cause of the elements effecting the feeding upon Christ's true body and true blood within the heart by faith. His metaphysics put simply that "The effect is necessarily present within the cause".
Anglican Bishop Ray Sutton has an excellent video on UA-cam on Hooker's teaching.
@@albertgarcia-wm6so huh?
@@albertgarcia-wm6sohuh?
Just found this site per my searches regarding the Eucharist views without previously knowing the Anglican view !
I’m a reformed soteriology Calvinist, but worshiping at a local Lutheran Church ( LCMS ) with three doctrine exceptions: 1) real body & blood presence; 2) baptismal regeneration; 3) loosing your salvation ( a non reformed election position ).
Thanks for posting…
Dr Jordan Cooper has great videos on the debate between luther and Zwingli. Luther accuses Zwingli of being Nestorian because of denial of real body of christ in Eucharist.
"I would rather drink blood with the Romans than wine with the radicals." Martin Luther
I absolutely love this brother
Good stuff, brother. Importantly, Vermigli makes a helpful distinction. Our physical eating is a reception of the body and blood *as* an embodiment of faith (Oxford Disputation). So it's not the physical eating itself, but physical eating as an embodiment of faith; so the sacramental union between the body and blood and the bread and wine is a distinction that Vermigli (and Ridley for that matter) make.
I'm with you on the Eucharist. Im somewhere between both views too. In some ways I honestly prefer the Lutheran view, but I also understand the denial that the wicked eat the body of Christ. Vermigli's view might be the best sort of compromise, insofar as we can affirm a merely sacramental eating in the wicked, and yet a true *reception* that only happens by faith.
Yes. I have found myself landing extremely close to Vermigli in my Eucharistic theology. I think he is excellent.
I think it seems perfectly in line with the biblical witness that wickedness is punished by the reception of the body. So why is it hard to grapple with the wicked taking part?
@@cooperthatguy1271 Hey Cooper. Anglo Catholic here. I’ve not ironed out the specifics of my view yet, but broadly speaking, I affirm that Christ is bodily present, and that the wicked do partake to their demise. I personally would say a straightforward reading of 1 Corinthians backs that up, yet since I used to hold a more receptionist view, I can still see where that is coming from. I no longer agree with it, but I totally get it.
I'm reformed and I have this same issue as you have. Though, Lutheran eucharistic doctrine seems reasonable and more aligned with Patristic view, yet Lutheran Christology feels a little odd (All respect to my brothers Lutherans.. I heavily love, respect and appreciate you all). I'm struggling with this right now.
What are your thoughts on the validity of the lords supper in Evangelical protestant circles in general and what are your particular sensibilities about partaking and it’s efficacy if you were visiting such a Church? Also, I’m curious if you’re familiar of any writings that speak to this from the founding bishops of the REC.
I would be doubtful of sacramental efficacy in Evangelical contexts. Partly because they do not have valid orders, and secondly because they outright reject the idea of sacraments. If I were to visit an Evangelical Church, I would not partake.
The founding bishops of the REC would have been much more friendly to the question of sacraments in non-sacramental communities, but have since become far more catholic under Bishop Sutton.
Your job now is to root out all of this agreement with Reformed theology if you truly want to be Catholic. Stick with Luther (I say that as a non-Lutheran).
All I tell Roman Catholics is if Christ had bled himself into the cup and cut his body into a dish at the Passover then they have a case. When Christ talks about eating His Body he is saying we should have faith in him. Faith in Hebrew means literally to take and eat. Drinking His Blood means accepting the Divine Life He came to bring. It has symbolic and salvific