Curious if you’ve seen the (much) longer video we did that went into much more depth on his thesis? This video is less about “arguing against” or “disproving” his thesis. The main purpose is to give Dr Wadsworth a chance to clarify confusing language, to sharpen the points of disagreement in a charitable way so that the actual pushback can be as irenic and fair as possible.
I saw part of it (too long), but I do think part of the goal of both discussions so far has been to poke holes in Wadsworth’s view. Certainly there is not full agreement and you all did try to undermine his case in certain ways.
The argument (1:30:52) presented about metaphor theory and the continuity between Old Testament sacrifices and New Testament worship is grounded in some serious misunderstandings about the New Testament's radical redefinition of worship. While it’s true that metaphors can extend from concrete realities, the New Testament writers, especially Paul, consistently redefined Old Testament practices and symbols in ways that transcend their original meaning. Let’s break this down clearly and refute the main points: 1. Paul’s Use of "Living Sacrifices" Radically Transforms the Concept When Paul talks about offering our bodies as "living sacrifices" in Romans 12:1, he’s not just metaphorically extending the concept of Old Testament sacrifices into a new Christian reality. He’s fundamentally redefining what sacrifice means. Old Testament sacrifices were physical, bloody, and tied to the ritual system of atonement for sin. Paul, however, is calling for a spiritual, ongoing, personal dedication to God-not a continuation of the old sacrificial system, but a complete transformation of it. In Hebrews 10:12-14, the author states that Jesus' sacrifice was a once and for all atonement, putting an end to the need for further sacrifices. The shift from dead animal sacrifices to living personal sacrifices indicates a profound discontinuity with the Old Testament practice. Paul’s metaphor is not grounded in preserving the old system but in emphasizing a new kind of devotion that has nothing to do with the ritual slaughter of animals or physical offerings. 2. The New Testament Asserts a Break from Old Covenant Worship The argument that the worshiping congregation of Israel continues uninterrupted into the New Testament church misunderstands a key theme in the New Testament-the establishment of a New Covenant that supersedes the Old. Hebrews 8:13 states clearly, "By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear." Jesus’ death on the cross did not extend Old Testament temple sacrifices but rendered them unnecessary. Worship in the New Testament is defined by Jesus' once-for-all sacrifice, not by continuing the old sacrificial system in metaphorical form. In fact, John 4:21-24, where Jesus tells the Samaritan woman that worship will no longer be tied to specific places (like Jerusalem or Mount Gerizim), demonstrates that the old ways of worship are being entirely replaced by worship "in spirit and in truth." There is no ongoing temple, no physical altar, and no continuation of the Old Covenant worship framework. 3. The Ecclesia is Not Merely an Extension of Israel While it’s true that Gentiles are "grafted in" to the people of God (Romans 11:17), the New Testament reveals a distinct reality called *the Church." The "Ecclesia" (church) is not simply a continuation of Old Testament Israel, but rather a new community formed through the death and resurrection of Christ, bringing together both Jews and Gentiles into one body (Ephesians 2:14-16). Paul clearly distinguishes between Israel according to the flesh and the new people of God in Christ. Galatians 6:15-16 explicitly says that "neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation." The argument here tries to flatten the distinction between Israel and the Church, failing to recognize the newness of the Church as the body of Christ, formed not by ethnic or ritual boundaries, but by faith in Jesus and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. 4. Metaphors in the New Testament Often Mark Discontinuity, Not Continuity While metaphor theory might suggest that metaphors extend from concrete realities, biblical metaphors often signify transformation or fulfillment, not simple extension. When Jesus refers to Himself as the "Lamb of God" (John 1:29), this doesn’t mean that He is just another sacrificial lamb in the Levitical system; it means that He fulfills and completes that entire system, rendering it obsolete. Likewise, when Paul speaks of "living sacrifices," he is drawing on sacrificial imagery but redefining it in the context of Christian discipleship, not in continuity with the old sacrificial system. The suggestion that metaphors merely extend the old into the new without significant change overlooks the fact that New Testament metaphors often signal the arrival of something radically new-something that fulfills and thus *transforms* the old, rather than simply extending it. 5. The New Testament Church Worships in Spirit and Truth, Not Through Rituals and Sacrifices The New Testament repeatedly makes it clear that Christian worship is not bound by ritual, sacrifice, or location. Jesus’ statement in John 4 that “the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth” indicates a fundamental break from Old Testament forms of worship. The physical sacrifices and temple rituals of the Old Testament are replaced by a spiritual relationship with God, based on the Holy Spirit’s indwelling presence and the truth of the gospel. The idea that worship continues as a metaphorical extension of Old Testament sacrifices ignores this key theological shift. The argument that New Testament worship is merely a metaphorical extension of Old Testament sacrifices is misguided. Paul and the other New Testament writers are clear that worship in the New Covenant is radically different from the Old Testament system. The sacrificial system has been fulfilled and ended in Christ, and worship is now defined as spiritual, Christ-centered, and freed from the rituals of the Old Covenant. The Church is a new creation, not a continuation of Old Testament Israel, and its worship is based on the finished work of Christ, not on extending old sacrifices into a metaphorical Christian reality.
Thank you very much for taking the time to reply carefully! I may not be able to respond to each of these in much depth here, but I can guarantee you that we will give each of these points careful consideration and direct response in a follow-up video. If I can find time later, I'll try a brief response here.
@@1Whipperin I think this might be a good starting point for me to continue a discussion/response: You mentioned "worship in the New Covenant is radically different from the Old Testament system" and that "worship is... not [based] on extending old sacrifices into a metaphorical Christian reality." This seems to be Dr. Wadsworth's position as well: radical discontinuity, a "new and living way" as he quotes Hebrews saying from his dissertation. My broad question then is: why do we find so many examples of sacrificial and Old Testament/Covenant language being used by the NT authors? If the discontinuity is so radical as claimed, it seems that it invites confusion to use all the sacrificial language (eg, table, altar, pleasing aroma, offer/present, acceptable) and several of the "worship-words" which Dr. Wadsworth mentions as inherently temple/cultic (eg, latreia, proskyneo), if this break is as total/complete as is claimed. Add to that Jesus' words that he is the Temple, and Peter's/Paul's words that we are the living stones of the temple, and the ekklesia language (which is the invariable Greek translation of the Israel assembly: qahal)... etc. At some point, I believe one has to wonder if the discontinuity thesis holds explanatory power in light of the weight of evidence that must be explained away as something else. I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I'm curious: how would you handle this? What do you think the NT authors are doing when they use Temple/cultic worship language so frequently and pervasively, if there is such radical discontinuity? What new concepts are they trying to convey using the old language and concepts? Thanks!
@@churchkidpod Your question touches on an important aspect of New Testament theology-how to reconcile the radical discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants with the frequent use of sacrificial and temple-related language in the New Testament. Here's a way to navigate this apparent tension: 1. Radical Discontinuity Does Not Mean Total Erasure of Old Covenant Language: The New Covenant, as presented in the New Testament, does mark a radical break from the Old Covenant's sacrificial system, which was centered on physical altars, temples, and ritual offerings. However, this discontinuity doesn’t imply a complete erasure of Old Testament language. The sacrificial and cultic imagery is used precisely because it was deeply embedded in the mindset of the Jewish people. The New Testament authors, many of whom were Jewish, used this language to make sense of the transformative reality of Christ’s work on the cross. 2. Sacrificial Language Recast in Christ: The use of sacrificial and temple language is intended to show that the Old Covenant was fulfilled in Christ. The temple, sacrifices, and priesthood of the Old Testament all pointed toward Jesus as their ultimate fulfillment. For instance, when Jesus is referred to as the Lamb of God (John 1:29), or when Paul says we are "living sacrifices" (Romans 12:1), the New Testament is not suggesting a literal continuation of Old Covenant rituals. Rather, it is transforming these concepts to demonstrate how Christ's once-for-all sacrifice transcends and completes the sacrificial system. The language is employed metaphorically, but with deep theological significance, to show how the old system finds its culmination in the new reality brought by Christ. 3. Temple Language as Spiritual Transformation: When Jesus calls Himself the temple (John 2:19) or when Peter refers to believers as "living stones" in a spiritual house (1 Peter 2:5), the language of the temple is used in a spiritualized, transformed sense. This shows that the physical temple is no longer necessary for worship, as Jesus is now the meeting place between God and humanity. Believers, as part of His body, are now the living temple in which God dwells through His Spirit. The old concept is retained but radically transformed-what was once localized worship centered on the temple in Jerusalem is now universal, centered on Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. 4. Old Language to Communicate New Realities: The New Testament authors use familiar Old Covenant terms to convey the magnitude of the new spiritual realities in Christ. Terms like "altar," "priesthood," "sacrifice," and "offering" are employed to communicate that while the outward form has changed, the inward principles of devotion, submission, and worship of God remain. For example, when Paul says that the offering of the Gentiles is an "acceptable sacrifice" (Romans 15:16), he is not suggesting that the sacrificial system continues as before, but that the Gentiles coming to faith is a spiritual offering pleasing to God, framed in Old Covenant language to illustrate its spiritual significance. 5. The New Worship is Spiritual, Not Ritualistic: The New Covenant introduces a new kind of worship, one that is "in spirit and truth" (John 4:24), rather than tied to the external rituals of the temple. This worship is not based on extending old sacrifices into a metaphorical Christian reality, but rather on a radical shift where the believer’s entire life is offered as a spiritual act of worship (Romans 12:1-2). The language of sacrifice and temple is repurposed to signify the new relationship between God and His people-a relationship marked by the Holy Spirit's indwelling presence rather than ritualistic practices. 6. Ekklesia and Continuity with Israel: While "ekklesia" (the assembly) is indeed the Greek translation of the Old Testament "qahal" (assembly of Israel), the New Testament portrays the Church as the spiritual fulfillment of Israel. The Church is the "new Israel," not because it carries forward the Old Covenant practices, but because it inherits the promises of God through faith in Christ. This continuity with Israel is not a continuation of the Old Covenant’s legal or sacrificial system but a realization of God’s redemptive plan, where both Jews and Gentiles are united in Christ. The New Testament authors frequently use Old Covenant and temple language not to suggest continuity in ritual, but to demonstrate that these concepts find their ultimate fulfillment and transformation in Christ. The radical discontinuity lies in the fact that the physical rituals of the Old Covenant are no longer required because Jesus has fulfilled them once and for all. Yet, the language persists to help believers understand the new spiritual realities in Christ through familiar Old Testament imagery. The old system was a shadow; Christ is the reality.
@@1Whipperin thank you for the reply! I would wonder the same question of you and Dr Wadsworth both: what do you believe is happening when "spiritual" or "metaphorical" cultic activities are "offered"? I think I know what you/he believe is physically happening: something totally new and different, a posture/attitude of the heart rather than the body. But what *else* is happening, apart from the body? Is there any reality in the spiritual realm, or the heavenly realm/temple, which corresponds to those internal acts? When God says that he is pleased with spiritual sacrifices (eg, Heb 13:16), what exactly does that mean? And as a follow-up, how is that different from the Old Covenant apart from the physical acts themselves? If the end result is the same -- God is pleased, finds the person acceptable, continues to dwell in their midst and fellowship with them, etc -- then can we even say that "metaphorical sacrifices" are not *real* sacrifices? It feels as if there is a false dichotomy in operation: either the animal sacrifices continue, exactly as they have in their precise physical form, or all sacrifice is done and over with. I believe there is space for a third path: one wherein the logic and purpose and meaning of sacrifices (and therefore at least latreia-worship) is continuous across both Testaments/covenants, but the physical form both take has changed. Because the physical expression of animal sacrifices was always only half of what has always pleased God. That's why I wouldn't call this third way "radical discontinuity" or a "break" or "new". If there's one thing that the prophetic critique of sacrifices teaches us, it's that God cares about far more than just the physical acts themselves. In places like Hos 6, Amo 5, Isa 1, Ps 51, etc, he is clear: God cared deeply about the heart condition/posture of the Israelites when they brought animal sacrifices, and they didn't "work" without that being right. What is the impulse that compels us then to say that when we enter into the Temple of Jesus' Body (which is the ekklesia) and bring prayer/praise/alms/tithe/etc as living stones of that temple as living sacrifices, that we are not also bringing actual real sacrifices? They look very different, but isn't the goal the exact same across both Testaments/covenants: to purify the holy space (of our bodies) where God's Presence dwells, to offer gifts of thanksgiving and love to him for his mercy and grace, and to commune/fellowship with him? That was the purpose and function of the old covenant sacrifices, and I see no reason to limit the concept "sacrifice" purely to the physical acts performed in the tabernacle/Temple -- particularly when there is pervasive and persistent NT language that uses these concepts as if they remain valid and meaningful despite the physical form taking a different shape.
This video reiterates the reason why your first video was premature, unethical and unfair to Dr. Wadsworth. It's a rather important prerequisite in a "push back" video or a critical video, to first have made sure you understand what the proponent is arguing. Clearly that was not the case for your first 3hour (!) long video, you guys clearly did not understand competently what you were so confidently critiquing. Courtney, with respect, your personal experience has no relevance to the topic. What Christians have done from about the 3rd century AD onwards has no relevance to the discussion of the content of Dr. Wadsworth's thesis. Dr. Wadsworth is talking about biblical texts, culture in the first century and Greek words. He is PhD scholar who has had his dissertation supervised by other biblical scholars. I would find it so distracting and offensive that you're trying to prepare your come back while he is addressing your point. It's clearly showing me you have the wrong attitude here. I've been watching for over an hour, and you guys have gotten nowhere really. Everything here is just coming to terms. Going over and over the same ground.
@@TheLookingGlassAU Agreed... She couldn't even get through the "what they agree on" answer without criticizing him, then for her to be prepping her notes while he is addressing her criticism tells me she did not come on this in order to clarify anything. She came in combat mode and was likely thinking about her answer rather than trying to understand what Dr Wadsworth was saying.
Jesus’ Statement on Worship: The conversation between Jesus and the Samaritan woman in John 4 is not about legitimizing multiple worship sites or "cultic" practices, but rather about the shift from external, location-based worship to internal, spiritual worship. Jesus explicitly declares that a time is coming when people will not worship in Jerusalem or on Mount Gerizim but will worship the Father in spirit and truth (John 4:21-24). This was a profound break from the Old Testament system of temple-based worship. Jesus is pointing to a new reality where worship is no longer tied to geography or physical rituals but is rooted in a heart relationship with God. For example: Orthodox worship, with its elaborate rituals, ornate buildings, and liturgical traditions, has no basis in the New Testament or the biblical definition of worship laid out by Jesus and the apostles. 1. Worship is not tied to physical locations or rituals In John 4:21-24, Jesus makes it clear that true worship is no longer confined to specific places or practices. He says, “A time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth.” Jesus explicitly rejected the idea of worship tied to holy places-whether it was Jerusalem, Mount Gerizim, or any physical location. In contrast, Orthodox worship centers around church buildings and physical spaces, which contradicts Jesus’ declaration that God is spirit and true worship transcends location. 2. True worship is in Spirit and Truth, not external rituals The New Testament defines worship as something deeply spiritual, rooted in truth. Jesus emphasized that true worshipers are those who worship in "spirit and truth", not through rituals or elaborate ceremonies. The Orthodox tradition, with its formalized prayers, icons, incense, and repetitive rituals, focuses on outward forms rather than the spiritual heart of worship. The Bible makes it clear that worship should not be about external ceremonies but about an inner relationship with God. Colossians 2:16-17 warns against being caught up in rituals and practices that are merely a “shadow of the things to come.” True worship in the New Testament is a spiritual act of devotion to God, not tied to physical expressions. 3. New Testament worship is simple, heartfelt, and communal The early Church, as described in Acts and the epistles, worshiped in spirit and in truth through simple gatherings centered on prayer, the Word, and the breaking of bread (Acts 2:42). There is no evidence in the New Testament of complex rituals or ceremonial acts like those practiced in Orthodox churches. Worship was primarily a community of believers gathering in homes, praying, singing hymns, and encouraging one another in the faith (Ephesians 5:19). Orthodox worship, with its highly structured liturgies, processions, and formalities, has no foundation in the simple, spirit-led worship described in the New Testament. 4. Worship is a lifestyle, not a liturgical performance Romans 12:1 defines worship as offering our bodies as a “living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God-this is your true and proper worship.” Paul describes worship as something lived out in every aspect of life, not a set of formal rituals performed in a church building. The New Testament portrays worship as an ongoing relationship with God that extends beyond formal gatherings and encompasses every part of our lives. Orthodox worship, with its rigid structure, emphasizes liturgical performance rather than the New Testament’s teaching that worship is about daily submission to God’s will and living by the Spirit. 5. No New Testament support for veneration of icons and saints Orthodox worship also involves practices like the veneration of icons and prayers to saints, which have no basis in the New Testament. The Bible explicitly teaches that there is “one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5). The practice of venerating icons and seeking the intercession of saints directly contradicts the New Testament’s focus on Christ as the sole mediator and focus of our worship. Nowhere in the New Testament do we see believers praying to saints or venerating images. These practices are later additions and deviations from biblical worship in spirit and in truth. Orthodox worship, with its reliance on tradition, physical rituals, and external ceremonies, stands in stark contrast to the New Testament’s definition of worship in spirit and in truth. Jesus and the apostles made it clear that true worship is done in spirit and truth, not through complex rituals or sacred spaces. The New Testament presents a model of worship that is simple, sincere, and focused on a personal relationship with God through Christ. Orthodox worship, by focusing on external forms, not only lacks a biblical foundation but also obscures the true essence of worship as taught by Jesus.
Or, Baptist worship as another example: Baptist worship, often characterized by its informal style, sermon-centric focus, and structured order of service, has no solid basis in the New Testament. While it claims to adhere closely to biblical principles, Baptist worship diverges from the New Testament model of worship in several critical ways. 1. Sermon-Centric Worship is not the New Testament Model Baptist worship often revolves around the sermon, with the pastor acting as the central figure who delivers lengthy, often instructional, teachings. However, there is no New Testament precedent for a worship service being dominated by a single sermon or one person being elevated as the primary voice. While teaching is a vital part of the church's life (Acts 2:42), New Testament gatherings were marked by a communal and participatory atmosphere. 1 Corinthians 14:26 describes gatherings where “each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation.” The New Testament presents worship as interactive and Spirit-led, not focused on a single individual delivering a prepared monologue. By structuring services primarily around the sermon, Baptist worship reduces worship to a passive experience, where the congregation largely listens rather than engages in the kind of dynamic, Spirit-filled participation seen in the early church. 2. No Liturgical Structure in New Testament Worship Baptist worship, though informal compared to more traditional liturgical churches, is still structured with a clear and predetermined order of service, usually including songs, prayers, offerings, and a sermon. This routine order of worship is not found in the New Testament. Early Christian worship was spontaneous and led by the Holy Spirit, with various members of the body contributing as they were moved by God (1 Corinthians 14:26). The New Testament church did not follow a fixed, pre-planned structure of worship services as seen in most Baptist settings today. 3. The Elevation of a Pastor Conflicts with New Testament Leadership Baptist worship often places a heavy emphasis on the role of the pastor, who is seen as the primary leader and teacher of the congregation. This is evident in the typical Baptist church where the pastor delivers the sermon and exercises significant authority over the worship service. However, in the New Testament, church leadership is depicted as plural and shared among elders, with no singular figure exercising such authority over the congregation. The early church operated under a plurality of elders (Acts 14:23, Titus 1:5), and there is no example of a church where a single pastor holds the kind of elevated position common in Baptist congregations. The apostolic model was one of shared leadership and mutual edification, not centralized control by one figure. 4. Corporate Worship in the New Testament is Charismatic and Spirit-Led The New Testament portrays corporate worship as a Spirit-led, charismatic experience, where various gifts were exercised by different members of the body (1 Corinthians 12-14). Speaking in tongues, prophecy, interpretation, and spontaneous prayer were all part of the worship experience. Baptist worship often suppresses these charismatic elements, placing a strong emphasis on intellectual understanding and teaching while neglecting the spontaneous, Spirit-led dynamics that characterized early Christian gatherings. In fact, many Baptist churches have actively resisted the charismatic gifts that were so prevalent in New Testament worship, relegating them to a secondary or even non-existent role. This quenching of the Spirit's work within worship has no basis in the early church's vibrant, participatory model, where the Spirit was allowed to move freely through each member of the congregation. 5. Worship as a Lifestyle, Not Just a Sunday Event Romans 12:1 defines worship as presenting our bodies as "a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God." In the New Testament, worship was not confined to a Sunday service or a weekly meeting. Rather, it was a way of life-a daily submission to God in every aspect of life. Baptist worship often confines the concept of worship to the Sunday gathering and the singing of hymns, missing the broader New Testament definition of worship as a continual offering of one's life to God. While the New Testament believers gathered for communal worship, their understanding of worship was holistic and involved every facet of life, not simply an hour-long service once a week. Baptist worship, by focusing so heavily on the Sunday gathering and the sermon, risks compartmentalizing worship rather than seeing it as a life of total devotion to God. 6. Singing Hymns Without New Testament Spiritual Gifts Baptist worship typically includes the singing of hymns or praise songs as a key component of the service. While singing is certainly present in New Testament worship (Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16), it was accompanied by other charismatic expressions such as prophecy, tongues, and spiritual songs directly inspired by the Holy Spirit. Baptist worship, by contrast, often limits musical worship to prepared, human-composed hymns or songs, without making space for the Spirit-led gifts that were a natural part of New Testament gatherings. There is little room for spontaneity or for the congregation to contribute as the Spirit leads, as the New Testament encourages. Baptist worship, with its sermon-centered format, structured order of service, and strong emphasis on pastoral authority, departs significantly from the New Testament model of worship. The Bible depicts worship as an interactive, Spirit-led experience where the whole body participates and leadership is shared. Baptist worship lacks the charismatic and communal elements that characterized early Christian gatherings and suppresses the vibrant, Spirit-filled expression that the New Testament encourages. Therefore, it does not align with the biblical definition of worship as practiced by the apostles and early believers.
@@1Whipperinyou keep describe New Testament “Worship” services which contradicts Wadworths main thesis. Need to go back and rewrite everything you wrote. Just saying.
@@1WhipperinTom doesn’t think we should use the word worship because of the erroneous modern connotation and translation of 5 different Greek words all to the word Worship.
Tom is right on Communion not being a sacrifice. Courtney is incorrect on the Lord's Supper being for the forgiveness of sin, it can be seen as a food offering, but not a scapegoat sacrifice. The original dead and resurrection was for the forgiveness of sin, not the celebration of the rememberence of that event
By scapegoat, I'm guessing you mean the goat that would get sent out into the desert, and no, that was not a sacrifice to YHWH, but was to symbolically have the death and sins of the community placed on it. That was sent out to Azazel, the evil spirit.
Communion: It’s no more a sacrifice when we partake now, than the Passover. The actual Passover symbolised the cause of the angel of death passing over. All subsequent celebrations of the feast were not sacrifices, but a symbolic reminder to the people and next generations. It helped remind them what God did for them. Communion is the same. It’s a reminder. Because we need to remember what was done. ‘Take and eat’, means ‘apply now, what I did then.’ I don’t see how the partaking is a sacrifice at the time, rather a remembering of His sacrifice.
I normally don’t have a hard time following these types of discussions, but I’m not sure what Dr. Wadsworth is ultimately trying to say. If anyone understood, can someone please explain it to me?
@@mariebo7491 I definitely understand and agree with his stance. Only because I've listened to hours of his videos. I would encourage you to do the same, only if you genuinely want an answer to your question. Grace and peace.
@ well, it be nice to understand what the argument was in the first place before I spend hours on something. I don’t know what the stance is. What is he arguing for exactly? Can you give me a summary if you understand it so well?
Wadsworth is trying to shame mystery and awe in people who want to vertically connect with God and pose himself as a more dedicated Christian for doing so.
@@ContemplativeSoul pretty much. I thought maybe I was just misunderstanding what he was saying. But when I looked into it more, it was clear this man has no idea what he’s talking about. Being that he is the only one, EVER, to teach this is a clear indication that his conclusions are a serious error. What’s more concerning is others are falling for it.
Courtney and Joshua made sense. To say that the early Christians did not proskeneo when gathering together it is absurd. Unfortunately the ortodox church has taken fervent prayer out of the church. You do a bunch of formalities and then listen to the preast repeatedly recite a bunch of memorized prayers.
@EnHacore1 so you can discern their intentions by how well they perform for the camera? Liturgies and church services shouldn't be recorded anyway- that's TBN trash that's unfortunately become too mainstream
Christianity can live with out water baptism and lord's supper. Christianity must be understood in spiritual way only. Let's ask this question if a Christian didn't baptize in water and didn't participate in lord's supper , is he committing a sin? If we answer yes, I think we didn't understand the new testament. We are baptized with the Holy Spirit the moment we believe in the gospel, to be in Christ. then the eating and drinking refers to seeing your self in Chris,the renewal of your mind. as Christians we eat together in order to celebrate our triumph in Christ and to show that we are one body. But as I can see , baptism and lord's supper are making more harm than good in Christianity and are becoming a source of division. My take is ,we are 100% Christians with out them both , we are born again spiritually from the Word and Spirit. This two, so-called sacraments becomes ritualistic and displaced our spiritual nature in to mere carnal religious entities. No wonder then that Christianity loosing its appeal. But for Dr Tom, be strong and continue fighting this good fight for the once and for all sacrifice on the cross. Jesus is enough with out any sacraments. Togetherness, whether we eat and don't eat, whether we sank in water filled tub, or not. What matters is, to be in Christ and be at ease to each other. Let's keep it simple and natural with out ritualistic additions which draws much of our energy (what a wastage).
It was interesting to hear the topic discussed, "Is the Lord's Supper a Sacrifice?" I think it is much more obvious and universally agreeable to say that the Passover is indeed a sacrifice. However, renaming it confuses the issue tremendously as it is now terminologically divorced from its origins. I think that this whole thing is unnecessary. If instead, we understand that the annual Passover is what was in question, it would shed much light on the topic and similar things as well. I know that some would view mine as an extremely 'continuous' view lol but I do believe it is what the whole bible teaches, including Paul. The church fathers begin to get away from that, though, with going for Easter over Passover, etc. Diclaimer: There is nothing wrong with traditions per se, as long as they don't violate "all scripture" mentioned in 2tim3:16 Shabbat shalom!
Is the Lord's Supper a supper or breakfast? Church goers practice of a Sunday morning "Lord's Supper" contradict supper as an evening meal. A cracker and a shot of wine is more like a Costco sample than a meal? Or a shot of grape juice instead of wine?
@@1Whipperinyou just highlighted why 90% of people won't be able to grasp the thesis. Because words like sacrifice, worship and church are understood in a post mediaeval ,post reformation, post enlightenment, modern materialistic context. The thesis is saying everything you have culturally been indoctrinated to think about what should happen at church and what it's purpose is, are not reflect the 2nd temple era definition of the words Paul and other writers use to describe the first generation ekklesia. However the words we use have been delivered to us by the 3rd or 4th generation ekklesia who couldn't stomach the radical change Christ's sacrifice caused in the relationship between God and Human kind - it also exposed the hypocrisy, slavery to and oppression of the other gods of the gentiles. Jesus now asks all people everywhere to defect not to a God (though he is God) but to a brother and to a Father who loves you. Wadsworth's thesis makes so much sense especially if you have studied Mathew Bates' thesis about allegiance basis of faith and the Early middle ages transition the ekklesial life took post Constantine. This thesis is absolutely valid.
Are we limited to what we see in the NT then? If something is absent, then we aren’t allowed to incorporate it into our gatherings? Our lives as Christians? For example Sunday school isn’t in the NT? The sinners prayer? Is worship absent from edification or is it presupposed? Wadsworths work is a retelling of 70s-80s small group theology that has been well documented in English literature and distributed all over the globe. This is nothing new. The function and purpose of house churches in China. Cell churches in Asia and Africa. The historical documentation of the first 300 years of Christian history demonstrating that it was small home churches that spread across the Empire focused on teaching and building one another up while sharing in a common meal. He makes some interesting points but it’s nothing new. Plus, he misunderstands the relationship between what Christians refer to as the Old Testament (erroneously) and the New Testament (again erroneously) thinking in error that one set of writings make the other obsolete. They do nothing of the kind. The text itself is NOT the Covenant. In addition Paul’s Corinthian correspondence was written to a single church. We do NOT find any of the issues he is addressing there in any other letter. It is unique. His Church of Christ, Restorationist background and bias is clearly showing. 😢
I think Dr. Wadsworth’s thesis held up well here.
Yes, very well.
Curious if you’ve seen the (much) longer video we did that went into much more depth on his thesis?
This video is less about “arguing against” or “disproving” his thesis. The main purpose is to give Dr Wadsworth a chance to clarify confusing language, to sharpen the points of disagreement in a charitable way so that the actual pushback can be as irenic and fair as possible.
@@churchkidpod How about having Tom Wadsworth on again without the time constraint issue for the actual pushback?
@@1Whipperin I’ll let the channel admin answer that question. 🙂
I saw part of it (too long), but I do think part of the goal of both discussions so far has been to poke holes in Wadsworth’s view. Certainly there is not full agreement and you all did try to undermine his case in certain ways.
Very respectful and Edifying discussion. This is how Christians must behave. God bless you all.
The argument (1:30:52) presented about metaphor theory and the continuity between Old Testament sacrifices and New Testament worship is grounded in some serious misunderstandings about the New Testament's radical redefinition of worship. While it’s true that metaphors can extend from concrete realities, the New Testament writers, especially Paul, consistently redefined Old Testament practices and symbols in ways that transcend their original meaning. Let’s break this down clearly and refute the main points:
1. Paul’s Use of "Living Sacrifices" Radically Transforms the Concept
When Paul talks about offering our bodies as "living sacrifices" in Romans 12:1, he’s not just metaphorically extending the concept of Old Testament sacrifices into a new Christian reality. He’s fundamentally redefining what sacrifice means. Old Testament sacrifices were physical, bloody, and tied to the ritual system of atonement for sin. Paul, however, is calling for a spiritual, ongoing, personal dedication to God-not a continuation of the old sacrificial system, but a complete transformation of it. In Hebrews 10:12-14, the author states that Jesus' sacrifice was a once and for all atonement, putting an end to the need for further sacrifices.
The shift from dead animal sacrifices to living personal sacrifices indicates a profound discontinuity with the Old Testament practice. Paul’s metaphor is not grounded in preserving the old system but in emphasizing a new kind of devotion that has nothing to do with the ritual slaughter of animals or physical offerings.
2. The New Testament Asserts a Break from Old Covenant Worship
The argument that the worshiping congregation of Israel continues uninterrupted into the New Testament church misunderstands a key theme in the New Testament-the establishment of a New Covenant that supersedes the Old. Hebrews 8:13 states clearly, "By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear." Jesus’ death on the cross did not extend Old Testament temple sacrifices but rendered them unnecessary. Worship in the New Testament is defined by Jesus' once-for-all sacrifice, not by continuing the old sacrificial system in metaphorical form.
In fact, John 4:21-24, where Jesus tells the Samaritan woman that worship will no longer be tied to specific places (like Jerusalem or Mount Gerizim), demonstrates that the old ways of worship are being entirely replaced by worship "in spirit and in truth." There is no ongoing temple, no physical altar, and no continuation of the Old Covenant worship framework.
3. The Ecclesia is Not Merely an Extension of Israel
While it’s true that Gentiles are "grafted in" to the people of God (Romans 11:17), the New Testament reveals a distinct reality called *the Church." The "Ecclesia" (church) is not simply a continuation of Old Testament Israel, but rather a new community formed through the death and resurrection of Christ, bringing together both Jews and Gentiles into one body (Ephesians 2:14-16). Paul clearly distinguishes between Israel according to the flesh and the new people of God in Christ. Galatians 6:15-16 explicitly says that "neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation."
The argument here tries to flatten the distinction between Israel and the Church, failing to recognize the newness of the Church as the body of Christ, formed not by ethnic or ritual boundaries, but by faith in Jesus and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
4. Metaphors in the New Testament Often Mark Discontinuity, Not Continuity
While metaphor theory might suggest that metaphors extend from concrete realities, biblical metaphors often signify transformation or fulfillment, not simple extension. When Jesus refers to Himself as the "Lamb of God" (John 1:29), this doesn’t mean that He is just another sacrificial lamb in the Levitical system; it means that He fulfills and completes that entire system, rendering it obsolete. Likewise, when Paul speaks of "living sacrifices," he is drawing on sacrificial imagery but redefining it in the context of Christian discipleship, not in continuity with the old sacrificial system.
The suggestion that metaphors merely extend the old into the new without significant change overlooks the fact that New Testament metaphors often signal the arrival of something radically new-something that fulfills and thus *transforms* the old, rather than simply extending it.
5. The New Testament Church Worships in Spirit and Truth, Not Through Rituals and Sacrifices
The New Testament repeatedly makes it clear that Christian worship is not bound by ritual, sacrifice, or location. Jesus’ statement in John 4 that “the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth” indicates a fundamental break from Old Testament forms of worship. The physical sacrifices and temple rituals of the Old Testament are replaced by a spiritual relationship with God, based on the Holy Spirit’s indwelling presence and the truth of the gospel. The idea that worship continues as a metaphorical extension of Old Testament sacrifices ignores this key theological shift.
The argument that New Testament worship is merely a metaphorical extension of Old Testament sacrifices is misguided. Paul and the other New Testament writers are clear that worship in the New Covenant is radically different from the Old Testament system. The sacrificial system has been fulfilled and ended in Christ, and worship is now defined as spiritual, Christ-centered, and freed from the rituals of the Old Covenant. The Church is a new creation, not a continuation of Old Testament Israel, and its worship is based on the finished work of Christ, not on extending old sacrifices into a metaphorical Christian reality.
Thank you very much for taking the time to reply carefully! I may not be able to respond to each of these in much depth here, but I can guarantee you that we will give each of these points careful consideration and direct response in a follow-up video. If I can find time later, I'll try a brief response here.
@@churchkidpod Thank you for discussing.
@@1Whipperin I think this might be a good starting point for me to continue a discussion/response:
You mentioned "worship in the New Covenant is radically different from the Old Testament system" and that "worship is... not [based] on extending old sacrifices into a metaphorical Christian reality." This seems to be Dr. Wadsworth's position as well: radical discontinuity, a "new and living way" as he quotes Hebrews saying from his dissertation.
My broad question then is: why do we find so many examples of sacrificial and Old Testament/Covenant language being used by the NT authors? If the discontinuity is so radical as claimed, it seems that it invites confusion to use all the sacrificial language (eg, table, altar, pleasing aroma, offer/present, acceptable) and several of the "worship-words" which Dr. Wadsworth mentions as inherently temple/cultic (eg, latreia, proskyneo), if this break is as total/complete as is claimed. Add to that Jesus' words that he is the Temple, and Peter's/Paul's words that we are the living stones of the temple, and the ekklesia language (which is the invariable Greek translation of the Israel assembly: qahal)... etc.
At some point, I believe one has to wonder if the discontinuity thesis holds explanatory power in light of the weight of evidence that must be explained away as something else. I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I'm curious: how would you handle this? What do you think the NT authors are doing when they use Temple/cultic worship language so frequently and pervasively, if there is such radical discontinuity? What new concepts are they trying to convey using the old language and concepts? Thanks!
@@churchkidpod Your question touches on an important aspect of New Testament theology-how to reconcile the radical discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants with the frequent use of sacrificial and temple-related language in the New Testament. Here's a way to navigate this apparent tension:
1. Radical Discontinuity Does Not Mean Total Erasure of Old Covenant Language: The New Covenant, as presented in the New Testament, does mark a radical break from the Old Covenant's sacrificial system, which was centered on physical altars, temples, and ritual offerings. However, this discontinuity doesn’t imply a complete erasure of Old Testament language. The sacrificial and cultic imagery is used precisely because it was deeply embedded in the mindset of the Jewish people. The New Testament authors, many of whom were Jewish, used this language to make sense of the transformative reality of Christ’s work on the cross.
2. Sacrificial Language Recast in Christ: The use of sacrificial and temple language is intended to show that the Old Covenant was fulfilled in Christ. The temple, sacrifices, and priesthood of the Old Testament all pointed toward Jesus as their ultimate fulfillment. For instance, when Jesus is referred to as the Lamb of God (John 1:29), or when Paul says we are "living sacrifices" (Romans 12:1), the New Testament is not suggesting a literal continuation of Old Covenant rituals. Rather, it is transforming these concepts to demonstrate how Christ's once-for-all sacrifice transcends and completes the sacrificial system. The language is employed metaphorically, but with deep theological significance, to show how the old system finds its culmination in the new reality brought by Christ.
3. Temple Language as Spiritual Transformation: When Jesus calls Himself the temple (John 2:19) or when Peter refers to believers as "living stones" in a spiritual house (1 Peter 2:5), the language of the temple is used in a spiritualized, transformed sense. This shows that the physical temple is no longer necessary for worship, as Jesus is now the meeting place between God and humanity. Believers, as part of His body, are now the living temple in which God dwells through His Spirit. The old concept is retained but radically transformed-what was once localized worship centered on the temple in Jerusalem is now universal, centered on Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
4. Old Language to Communicate New Realities: The New Testament authors use familiar Old Covenant terms to convey the magnitude of the new spiritual realities in Christ. Terms like "altar," "priesthood," "sacrifice," and "offering" are employed to communicate that while the outward form has changed, the inward principles of devotion, submission, and worship of God remain. For example, when Paul says that the offering of the Gentiles is an "acceptable sacrifice" (Romans 15:16), he is not suggesting that the sacrificial system continues as before, but that the Gentiles coming to faith is a spiritual offering pleasing to God, framed in Old Covenant language to illustrate its spiritual significance.
5. The New Worship is Spiritual, Not Ritualistic: The New Covenant introduces a new kind of worship, one that is "in spirit and truth" (John 4:24), rather than tied to the external rituals of the temple. This worship is not based on extending old sacrifices into a metaphorical Christian reality, but rather on a radical shift where the believer’s entire life is offered as a spiritual act of worship (Romans 12:1-2). The language of sacrifice and temple is repurposed to signify the new relationship between God and His people-a relationship marked by the Holy Spirit's indwelling presence rather than ritualistic practices.
6. Ekklesia and Continuity with Israel: While "ekklesia" (the assembly) is indeed the Greek translation of the Old Testament "qahal" (assembly of Israel), the New Testament portrays the Church as the spiritual fulfillment of Israel. The Church is the "new Israel," not because it carries forward the Old Covenant practices, but because it inherits the promises of God through faith in Christ. This continuity with Israel is not a continuation of the Old Covenant’s legal or sacrificial system but a realization of God’s redemptive plan, where both Jews and Gentiles are united in Christ.
The New Testament authors frequently use Old Covenant and temple language not to suggest continuity in ritual, but to demonstrate that these concepts find their ultimate fulfillment and transformation in Christ. The radical discontinuity lies in the fact that the physical rituals of the Old Covenant are no longer required because Jesus has fulfilled them once and for all. Yet, the language persists to help believers understand the new spiritual realities in Christ through familiar Old Testament imagery. The old system was a shadow; Christ is the reality.
@@1Whipperin thank you for the reply!
I would wonder the same question of you and Dr Wadsworth both: what do you believe is happening when "spiritual" or "metaphorical" cultic activities are "offered"? I think I know what you/he believe is physically happening: something totally new and different, a posture/attitude of the heart rather than the body. But what *else* is happening, apart from the body? Is there any reality in the spiritual realm, or the heavenly realm/temple, which corresponds to those internal acts? When God says that he is pleased with spiritual sacrifices (eg, Heb 13:16), what exactly does that mean?
And as a follow-up, how is that different from the Old Covenant apart from the physical acts themselves? If the end result is the same -- God is pleased, finds the person acceptable, continues to dwell in their midst and fellowship with them, etc -- then can we even say that "metaphorical sacrifices" are not *real* sacrifices? It feels as if there is a false dichotomy in operation: either the animal sacrifices continue, exactly as they have in their precise physical form, or all sacrifice is done and over with. I believe there is space for a third path: one wherein the logic and purpose and meaning of sacrifices (and therefore at least latreia-worship) is continuous across both Testaments/covenants, but the physical form both take has changed.
Because the physical expression of animal sacrifices was always only half of what has always pleased God. That's why I wouldn't call this third way "radical discontinuity" or a "break" or "new". If there's one thing that the prophetic critique of sacrifices teaches us, it's that God cares about far more than just the physical acts themselves. In places like Hos 6, Amo 5, Isa 1, Ps 51, etc, he is clear: God cared deeply about the heart condition/posture of the Israelites when they brought animal sacrifices, and they didn't "work" without that being right. What is the impulse that compels us then to say that when we enter into the Temple of Jesus' Body (which is the ekklesia) and bring prayer/praise/alms/tithe/etc as living stones of that temple as living sacrifices, that we are not also bringing actual real sacrifices?
They look very different, but isn't the goal the exact same across both Testaments/covenants: to purify the holy space (of our bodies) where God's Presence dwells, to offer gifts of thanksgiving and love to him for his mercy and grace, and to commune/fellowship with him? That was the purpose and function of the old covenant sacrifices, and I see no reason to limit the concept "sacrifice" purely to the physical acts performed in the tabernacle/Temple -- particularly when there is pervasive and persistent NT language that uses these concepts as if they remain valid and meaningful despite the physical form taking a different shape.
This video reiterates the reason why your first video was premature, unethical and unfair to Dr. Wadsworth.
It's a rather important prerequisite in a "push back" video or a critical video, to first have made sure you understand what the proponent is arguing.
Clearly that was not the case for your first 3hour (!) long video, you guys clearly did not understand competently what you were so confidently critiquing.
Courtney, with respect, your personal experience has no relevance to the topic. What Christians have done from about the 3rd century AD onwards has no relevance to the discussion of the content of Dr. Wadsworth's thesis. Dr. Wadsworth is talking about biblical texts, culture in the first century and Greek words. He is PhD scholar who has had his dissertation supervised by other biblical scholars. I would find it so distracting and offensive that you're trying to prepare your come back while he is addressing your point. It's clearly showing me you have the wrong attitude here.
I've been watching for over an hour, and you guys have gotten nowhere really. Everything here is just coming to terms. Going over and over the same ground.
@@TheLookingGlassAU Agreed... She couldn't even get through the "what they agree on" answer without criticizing him, then for her to be prepping her notes while he is addressing her criticism tells me she did not come on this in order to clarify anything. She came in combat mode and was likely thinking about her answer rather than trying to understand what Dr Wadsworth was saying.
Jesus’ Statement on Worship: The conversation between Jesus and the Samaritan woman in John 4 is not about legitimizing multiple worship sites or "cultic" practices, but rather about the shift from external, location-based worship to internal, spiritual worship. Jesus explicitly declares that a time is coming when people will not worship in Jerusalem or on Mount Gerizim but will worship the Father in spirit and truth (John 4:21-24). This was a profound break from the Old Testament system of temple-based worship. Jesus is pointing to a new reality where worship is no longer tied to geography or physical rituals but is rooted in a heart relationship with God.
For example: Orthodox worship, with its elaborate rituals, ornate buildings, and liturgical traditions, has no basis in the New Testament or the biblical definition of worship laid out by Jesus and the apostles.
1. Worship is not tied to physical locations or rituals
In John 4:21-24, Jesus makes it clear that true worship is no longer confined to specific places or practices. He says, “A time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth.” Jesus explicitly rejected the idea of worship tied to holy places-whether it was Jerusalem, Mount Gerizim, or any physical location. In contrast, Orthodox worship centers around church buildings and physical spaces, which contradicts Jesus’ declaration that God is spirit and true worship transcends location.
2. True worship is in Spirit and Truth, not external rituals
The New Testament defines worship as something deeply spiritual, rooted in truth. Jesus emphasized that true worshipers are those who worship in "spirit and truth", not through rituals or elaborate ceremonies. The Orthodox tradition, with its formalized prayers, icons, incense, and repetitive rituals, focuses on outward forms rather than the spiritual heart of worship. The Bible makes it clear that worship should not be about external ceremonies but about an inner relationship with God. Colossians 2:16-17 warns against being caught up in rituals and practices that are merely a “shadow of the things to come.” True worship in the New Testament is a spiritual act of devotion to God, not tied to physical expressions.
3. New Testament worship is simple, heartfelt, and communal
The early Church, as described in Acts and the epistles, worshiped in spirit and in truth through simple gatherings centered on prayer, the Word, and the breaking of bread (Acts 2:42). There is no evidence in the New Testament of complex rituals or ceremonial acts like those practiced in Orthodox churches. Worship was primarily a community of believers gathering in homes, praying, singing hymns, and encouraging one another in the faith (Ephesians 5:19). Orthodox worship, with its highly structured liturgies, processions, and formalities, has no foundation in the simple, spirit-led worship described in the New Testament.
4. Worship is a lifestyle, not a liturgical performance
Romans 12:1 defines worship as offering our bodies as a “living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God-this is your true and proper worship.” Paul describes worship as something lived out in every aspect of life, not a set of formal rituals performed in a church building. The New Testament portrays worship as an ongoing relationship with God that extends beyond formal gatherings and encompasses every part of our lives. Orthodox worship, with its rigid structure, emphasizes liturgical performance rather than the New Testament’s teaching that worship is about daily submission to God’s will and living by the Spirit.
5. No New Testament support for veneration of icons and saints
Orthodox worship also involves practices like the veneration of icons and prayers to saints, which have no basis in the New Testament. The Bible explicitly teaches that there is “one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5). The practice of venerating icons and seeking the intercession of saints directly contradicts the New Testament’s focus on Christ as the sole mediator and focus of our worship. Nowhere in the New Testament do we see believers praying to saints or venerating images. These practices are later additions and deviations from biblical worship in spirit and in truth.
Orthodox worship, with its reliance on tradition, physical rituals, and external ceremonies, stands in stark contrast to the New Testament’s definition of worship in spirit and in truth. Jesus and the apostles made it clear that true worship is done in spirit and truth, not through complex rituals or sacred spaces. The New Testament presents a model of worship that is simple, sincere, and focused on a personal relationship with God through Christ. Orthodox worship, by focusing on external forms, not only lacks a biblical foundation but also obscures the true essence of worship as taught by Jesus.
Or, Baptist worship as another example:
Baptist worship, often characterized by its informal style, sermon-centric focus, and structured order of service, has no solid basis in the New Testament. While it claims to adhere closely to biblical principles, Baptist worship diverges from the New Testament model of worship in several critical ways.
1. Sermon-Centric Worship is not the New Testament Model
Baptist worship often revolves around the sermon, with the pastor acting as the central figure who delivers lengthy, often instructional, teachings. However, there is no New Testament precedent for a worship service being dominated by a single sermon or one person being elevated as the primary voice. While teaching is a vital part of the church's life (Acts 2:42), New Testament gatherings were marked by a communal and participatory atmosphere. 1 Corinthians 14:26 describes gatherings where “each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation.” The New Testament presents worship as interactive and Spirit-led, not focused on a single individual delivering a prepared monologue.
By structuring services primarily around the sermon, Baptist worship reduces worship to a passive experience, where the congregation largely listens rather than engages in the kind of dynamic, Spirit-filled participation seen in the early church.
2. No Liturgical Structure in New Testament Worship
Baptist worship, though informal compared to more traditional liturgical churches, is still structured with a clear and predetermined order of service, usually including songs, prayers, offerings, and a sermon. This routine order of worship is not found in the New Testament. Early Christian worship was spontaneous and led by the Holy Spirit, with various members of the body contributing as they were moved by God (1 Corinthians 14:26). The New Testament church did not follow a fixed, pre-planned structure of worship services as seen in most Baptist settings today.
3. The Elevation of a Pastor Conflicts with New Testament Leadership
Baptist worship often places a heavy emphasis on the role of the pastor, who is seen as the primary leader and teacher of the congregation. This is evident in the typical Baptist church where the pastor delivers the sermon and exercises significant authority over the worship service. However, in the New Testament, church leadership is depicted as plural and shared among elders, with no singular figure exercising such authority over the congregation. The early church operated under a plurality of elders (Acts 14:23, Titus 1:5), and there is no example of a church where a single pastor holds the kind of elevated position common in Baptist congregations. The apostolic model was one of shared leadership and mutual edification, not centralized control by one figure.
4. Corporate Worship in the New Testament is Charismatic and Spirit-Led
The New Testament portrays corporate worship as a Spirit-led, charismatic experience, where various gifts were exercised by different members of the body (1 Corinthians 12-14). Speaking in tongues, prophecy, interpretation, and spontaneous prayer were all part of the worship experience. Baptist worship often suppresses these charismatic elements, placing a strong emphasis on intellectual understanding and teaching while neglecting the spontaneous, Spirit-led dynamics that characterized early Christian gatherings.
In fact, many Baptist churches have actively resisted the charismatic gifts that were so prevalent in New Testament worship, relegating them to a secondary or even non-existent role. This quenching of the Spirit's work within worship has no basis in the early church's vibrant, participatory model, where the Spirit was allowed to move freely through each member of the congregation.
5. Worship as a Lifestyle, Not Just a Sunday Event
Romans 12:1 defines worship as presenting our bodies as "a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God." In the New Testament, worship was not confined to a Sunday service or a weekly meeting. Rather, it was a way of life-a daily submission to God in every aspect of life. Baptist worship often confines the concept of worship to the Sunday gathering and the singing of hymns, missing the broader New Testament definition of worship as a continual offering of one's life to God.
While the New Testament believers gathered for communal worship, their understanding of worship was holistic and involved every facet of life, not simply an hour-long service once a week. Baptist worship, by focusing so heavily on the Sunday gathering and the sermon, risks compartmentalizing worship rather than seeing it as a life of total devotion to God.
6. Singing Hymns Without New Testament Spiritual Gifts
Baptist worship typically includes the singing of hymns or praise songs as a key component of the service. While singing is certainly present in New Testament worship (Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16), it was accompanied by other charismatic expressions such as prophecy, tongues, and spiritual songs directly inspired by the Holy Spirit. Baptist worship, by contrast, often limits musical worship to prepared, human-composed hymns or songs, without making space for the Spirit-led gifts that were a natural part of New Testament gatherings. There is little room for spontaneity or for the congregation to contribute as the Spirit leads, as the New Testament encourages.
Baptist worship, with its sermon-centered format, structured order of service, and strong emphasis on pastoral authority, departs significantly from the New Testament model of worship. The Bible depicts worship as an interactive, Spirit-led experience where the whole body participates and leadership is shared. Baptist worship lacks the charismatic and communal elements that characterized early Christian gatherings and suppresses the vibrant, Spirit-filled expression that the New Testament encourages. Therefore, it does not align with the biblical definition of worship as practiced by the apostles and early believers.
@@1Whipperinyou keep describe New Testament “Worship” services which contradicts Wadworths main thesis. Need to go back and rewrite everything you wrote. Just saying.
@@charlesbivens6757 No worship service
Worship is in spirit and in truth. That's what Wadsworth is saying.
@@1WhipperinTom doesn’t think we should use the word worship because of the erroneous modern connotation and translation of 5 different Greek words all to the word Worship.
Tom is right on Communion not being a sacrifice. Courtney is incorrect on the Lord's Supper being for the forgiveness of sin, it can be seen as a food offering, but not a scapegoat sacrifice. The original dead and resurrection was for the forgiveness of sin, not the celebration of the rememberence of that event
By scapegoat, I'm guessing you mean the goat that would get sent out into the desert, and no, that was not a sacrifice to YHWH, but was to symbolically have the death and sins of the community placed on it. That was sent out to Azazel, the evil spirit.
Very interesting chat!! 👍👍
Communion: It’s no more a sacrifice when we partake now, than the Passover. The actual Passover symbolised the cause of the angel of death passing over. All subsequent celebrations of the feast were not sacrifices, but a symbolic reminder to the people and next generations. It helped remind them what God did for them.
Communion is the same. It’s a reminder. Because we need to remember what was done. ‘Take and eat’, means ‘apply now, what I did then.’ I don’t see how the partaking is a sacrifice at the time, rather a remembering of His sacrifice.
The Passover, along with todah sacrifices, are both sacrifices that the community shares in with God, by eating.
Is it just me, or does it seem like 3 against 1?
What’s Celtic worship as opposed to any other type of worship?
I normally don’t have a hard time following these types of discussions, but I’m not sure what Dr. Wadsworth is ultimately trying to say. If anyone understood, can someone please explain it to me?
@@mariebo7491 I definitely understand and agree with his stance. Only because I've listened to hours of his videos. I would encourage you to do the same, only if you genuinely want an answer to your question. Grace and peace.
@ well, it be nice to understand what the argument was in the first place before I spend hours on something. I don’t know what the stance is. What is he arguing for exactly? Can you give me a summary if you understand it so well?
Watch Dr. Wadsworth's videos on his thesis. Then you won't have such a hard time understanding.
Wadsworth is trying to shame mystery and awe in people who want to vertically connect with God and pose himself as a more dedicated Christian for doing so.
@@ContemplativeSoul pretty much. I thought maybe I was just misunderstanding what he was saying. But when I looked into it more, it was clear this man has no idea what he’s talking about. Being that he is the only one, EVER, to teach this is a clear indication that his conclusions are a serious error. What’s more concerning is others are falling for it.
Courtney and Joshua made sense. To say that the early Christians did not proskeneo when gathering together it is absurd. Unfortunately the ortodox church has taken fervent prayer out of the church. You do a bunch of formalities and then listen to the preast repeatedly recite a bunch of memorized prayers.
Totally silly and ignorant comment coming from somebody who clearly hasn’t spent much of any time in Orthodox services.
@SinkingStarship are you telling me there is fervent prayer in the ortodox church service? Please show me a video.
@EnHacore1 so you can discern their intentions by how well they perform for the camera?
Liturgies and church services shouldn't be recorded anyway- that's TBN trash that's unfortunately become too mainstream
Christianity can live with out water baptism and lord's supper.
Christianity must be understood in spiritual way only.
Let's ask this question if a Christian didn't baptize in water and didn't participate in lord's supper , is he committing a sin? If we answer yes, I think we didn't understand the new testament.
We are baptized with the Holy Spirit the moment we believe in the gospel, to be in Christ. then the eating and drinking refers to seeing your self in Chris,the renewal of your mind.
as Christians we eat together in order to celebrate our triumph in Christ and to show that we are one body.
But as I can see , baptism and lord's supper are making more harm than good in Christianity and are becoming a source of division.
My take is ,we are 100% Christians with out them both , we are born again spiritually from the Word and Spirit.
This two, so-called sacraments becomes ritualistic and displaced our spiritual nature in to mere carnal religious entities.
No wonder then that Christianity loosing its appeal.
But for Dr Tom, be strong and continue fighting this good fight for the once and for all sacrifice on the cross. Jesus is enough with out any sacraments. Togetherness, whether we eat and don't eat, whether we sank in water filled tub, or not.
What matters is, to be in Christ and be at ease to each other. Let's keep it simple and natural with out ritualistic additions which draws much of our energy (what a wastage).
It was interesting to hear the topic discussed, "Is the Lord's Supper a Sacrifice?"
I think it is much more obvious and universally agreeable to say that the Passover is indeed a sacrifice. However, renaming it confuses the issue tremendously as it is now terminologically divorced from its origins. I think that this whole thing is unnecessary.
If instead, we understand that the annual Passover is what was in question, it would shed much light on the topic and similar things as well.
I know that some would view mine as an extremely 'continuous' view lol but I do believe it is what the whole bible teaches, including Paul. The church fathers begin to get away from that, though, with going for Easter over Passover, etc. Diclaimer: There is nothing wrong with traditions per se, as long as they don't violate "all scripture" mentioned in 2tim3:16
Shabbat shalom!
Is the Lord's Supper a supper or breakfast? Church goers practice of a Sunday morning "Lord's Supper" contradict supper as an evening meal. A cracker and a shot of wine is more like a Costco sample than a meal? Or a shot of grape juice instead of wine?
@@1Whipperinyou just highlighted why 90% of people won't be able to grasp the thesis.
Because words like sacrifice, worship and church are understood in a post mediaeval ,post reformation, post enlightenment, modern materialistic context. The thesis is saying everything you have culturally been indoctrinated to think about what should happen at church and what it's purpose is, are not reflect the 2nd temple era definition of the words Paul and other writers use to describe the first generation ekklesia. However the words we use have been delivered to us by the 3rd or 4th generation ekklesia who couldn't stomach the radical change Christ's sacrifice caused in the relationship between God and Human kind - it also exposed the hypocrisy, slavery to and oppression of the other gods of the gentiles.
Jesus now asks all people everywhere to defect not to a God (though he is God) but to a brother and to a Father who loves you.
Wadsworth's thesis makes so much sense especially if you have studied Mathew Bates' thesis about allegiance basis of faith and the Early middle ages transition the ekklesial life took post Constantine.
This thesis is absolutely valid.
Are we limited to what we see in the NT then? If something is absent, then we aren’t allowed to incorporate it into our gatherings? Our lives as Christians? For example Sunday school isn’t in the NT? The sinners prayer?
Is worship absent from edification or is it presupposed? Wadsworths work is a retelling of 70s-80s small group theology that has been well documented in English literature and distributed all over the globe. This is nothing new. The function and purpose of house churches in China. Cell churches in Asia and Africa. The historical documentation of the first 300 years of Christian history demonstrating that it was small home churches that spread across the Empire focused on teaching and building one another up while sharing in a common meal. He makes some interesting points but it’s nothing new.
Plus, he misunderstands the relationship between what Christians refer to as the Old Testament (erroneously) and the New Testament (again erroneously) thinking in error that one set of writings make the other obsolete. They do nothing of the kind. The text itself is NOT the Covenant.
In addition Paul’s Corinthian correspondence was written to a single church. We do NOT find any of the issues he is addressing there in any other letter. It is unique.
His Church of Christ, Restorationist background and bias is clearly showing. 😢