Josh, the word “fruit” here refers to “what is produced”. Think of Fruit of the loom, which is cloth. The fruit of your labor might be whatever your labor produces. The fruit of your loins is... well.. children. Get it? The fruit of the cross is the crucifixion of Christ, which is where the Eucharist comes from.
@@xnihilo1044 Oh yeah we are more like Jonah under his bottle gourd plant. Which we did not work for but if grew for us in a day and it died in a night
I was born and raised Southern Baptist and always felt “absent from God” because I was never “moved” by the Spirit. In my early 20’s I went by chance (now understanding Spirit led) to a Lutheran church, and immediately felt at home. The ritual of liturgy and holy sacrament spoke to me in a way that evangelicalism never has. The Lord indeed works in mysterious ways. Amen.
As a recent-ish convert to Christianity, I am in what CS Lewis described as the mere Christianity phase, where I'm in the building, but I still don't know which room I belong in. I want to thank Matt for taking the time to walk around knocking on the doors with me and asking the questions that I don't know I need to be asking, and for doing so so graciously. I don't think the Lutheran room is the one for me, but I would like to point out how awesomely cool it is that this Will Weedon guy is in the same building. The passion, friendliness, and humility are all contagious, and highly appreciated.
Well, I am sad that the Lutheran perspective of things is not for you, but I still hope you find your way to the Lord in a community that you love and that loves you.
I would of course recommend the Catholic room, I somewhat recently (2.5 years ago) came over from the Calvinist room which I arrived at from the LDS building (room didn't seem appropriate here, the LDS church is more like an adjacent building than a room).
@@bearistotle2820 The dogma is Outside the Church there is no salvation. So like in the time of Noah everyone outside the Church will perish including Vatican II Catholics
Matt, another great dialogue. I'm Catholic and love watching these. My only complaint is I wish they were longer! Will said a couple things about what Catholics believe though that I would like to correct or clarify for your audience. At 6:18, he says that for Lutherans, forgiveness does not hang on the penance aspect of confession, that the forgiveness of sins can be had even without a penance. Catholics believe that too. The Catechism of the Catholic Church in paragraph 1459 says "Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused. Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must "make satisfaction for" or "expiate" his sins. This satisfaction is also called "penance."" So, for us, penance is something that the Church in her pastoral wisdom has attached to the sacrament of reconciliation, but she does not understand penance to be a necessary part of forgiveness. At 7:30, he describes the illustration from the Baltimore Catechism. Perhaps he has remembered this illustration differently, but that is not what is in the actual book. He is likely referring to the picture on the bottom of this page (ldysinger.stjohnsem.edu/@texts2/1962_sj_balt_cat/195_com-rel_voc.htm). Notice it does not say that the person forgot a sin. Rather, it says he is ashamed of one and thus does not confess it. If one legitimately forgets to confess a sin, we believe God forgives that person on account of his honest repentance. If he subsequently remembers that sin though, he is still forgiven, but is encouraged to mention it in his next confession. If, however, one deliberately omits confessing a sin he knows he ought to confess, then the sacrament does not avail him because in refusing to be sorry for one sin, it shows that he is not truly repentant. So, Will is right in saying that he comes out with 4 sins instead of three, but only if one of those initial three is deliberately not confessed. This understanding of it, then, is not a huge burden at all, as he says. If he were right that forgetting to confess a sin were itself sinful, that would rack my conscience too. But that's contrary to common sense, and not what the Church believes. At 9:04, Will says, "Jesus says, 'This bread is his body, and this wine is his blood." Not to be too nitpicky, but in Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, and 1 Corinthians 11, we do not read "This bread is my body" etc. We only read "This is my body." If it was substantially bread and wine in addition to the substance of Christ himself, then the Person of the Word would have three natures - one divine, one human, one bread. This would not only be quite strange, but it would have pretty dire consequences where the doctrine of the hypostatic union is concerned. St. Irenaeus witnesses to this in Against Heresies 4:18:5 where he says the bread "is no longer common bread but the Eucharist." All in all, really appreciate these videos. Keep up the good work brother!
@@goodoleblue I'm not sure exactly what you mean. If you're distinguishing between the physical properties of the bread and what the "stuff" (matter) actually IS, that's basically the distinction between substance and accident, aka the Catholic position..
@@goodoleblue When you say it like that, one can conclude two interpretations: 1. An extension of the physical nature of Christ, as a symbol of Christ humanity. or 2. An extension of the physical nature of Christ, as the real thing of Christ's nature. Then you can also expand on the second interpretation. Whether or not the bread itself is the same substance as the Body, or the essence changes but the appearance stay the same. I do pray that Catholics and Lutherans unite once again. That specific differences of the Real Presence is toooooooo detailed, and was not even a primary factor of why there was separation between Catholics and Lutherans in the first place. In my opinion, the different ideas of how the Real Presence is present in the Eucharist between Catholics and Lutherans is minute compared to other things. The Eucharist is indeed a mystery. We can’t fully understand how it happens, both Lutherans and Catholics (even add in the Orthodox) alike. We do have expressed views as to how it goes about, but we still both agree to the main definition of Real Presence in the Eucharist: that it is really Jesus in the bread and wine, not some symbolic term. God Bless. I pray that Catholics and Lutherans may be one as Jesus intended His Church to be in the first place.
Now when I think about it. What the Lutherans say is pretty much the same as that of Catholics. Semantics are just in play. Another reason why this is not even an issue that differs us in the first place. Please correct me anyone if I'm wrong though. I'm not well versed in this.
As a Roman Catholic this had me screaming at my screen a few times :D But I was also blown away by just how similar our theology is in so many respects....I honestly never realized just how close Lutheranism is to our faith. Thanks for another great set of videos Matt!
@Joseph Fossa Jesus Christ gave us the Holy Spirit, not the Pope. If Pope was truly the Vicar of Christ, he would be teaching the world about salvation through Christ. The media and other religions admire him for his humanitarianism but I am willing to bet the moment he engages in the teachings of Christ, he would be persecuted and the mainstream media would leave. Pope followers think of the pope when they see him , not Christ.
@@SoldierOfGod778 Does it say in the bible that the church that has miracles is the true church? The Holy Spirit is not found in bricks and mortar. God sees your heart and your actions. Look at the actions of the Catholic church on not protecting the young from pedophiles. Moreover, it was the actions of the Catholic church that caused divisions. Lastly, God communicates with all of us in one form or another.
In the 65th translation of the bible, (Luther Revised edition) it says *"Blessed are the chosen for by your faith alone, you have been saved, for the Kingdom of God is yours."*
Chris Kontennutzer For me it’s more an “approach to churching” issue than a theological issue. For example, the Lutheran church my sister & her family go to has I believe an annual sermon schedule. Like, every first Sunday of the year they preach the same sermon. I get (or at least I think I get) their reasons for doing it that way, but I have trouble believing that whoever laid out the sermon schedule for the entire denomination however many years ago had any idea which sermon subject on any given day would be the most helpful for any particular congregation. Stuff like that. I do disagree with some of their theology as well, but I don’t know my bible well enough yet to _confidently_ say that I’m right and they’re wrong.
Chris Kontennutzer (WRT sermon schedules) Yes, but even setting aside the issue of whether churches should be teaching us to be better husbands etc, can you see how a reasonable person might conclude that, for example, congregations in areas with very high rates of property crime might need more reminders of what the Bible says about stealing than a congregation in other areas? Or if a very prominent “Christian” leader in the community says something heretical, how it might be helpful to put off for a week whatever you were going to preach about and address why that person is wrong? I agree that it’s a good idea for churches to plan out how they’re going to teach their congregation the _entire_ Bible, I’m just not sold on having it done on the denomination level instead of the church level.
@@chriskontennutzer4473 A cradle Southern Episcopalian with brother/sister cousins in Penn. who are ELCA pastors and currently I am enrolled in RCIA Catholic conversion class at 65 years old.
Man, that was heavy. Especially Will’s remarks about communion. Regardless of one’s thoughts on transubstantiation, you can’t deny that much of what Will said about communion is from the NT. His warnings to not eat and drink in an unworthy manner are from St. Paul himself. I, for one, will give more thought to the Lord’s supper the next time I partake of it.
No. The kid in the Baltimore Catechism doesn't "forget" the sin. He deliberately refuses to mention it. Catholics believe that if you forget a sin, it's covered in your general intent to confess all your sins.
@@bartee807 I find that a lot of people oppose the Catholic Church on specifics that they don't know the details of. Catholics actually agree with Lutherans on a lot more than is commonly supposed.
@@Thomaskloppmusic well alot of their demands did eventually happen. I was told once of they would drop sola Scriptora and accept apostlic succession you would have Catholics. Repentance isn't required in Catholicism. It's just recommended. I don't always get a repentance.
Keithen Hamilton Repentance is always required, otherwise confession is pointless. It’s mandatory for a confession to be valid. If you are not truly repentant and sorry for your sins, then your confession is a lie and invalid.
We’ve been visiting a Lutheran church for the past months (a WELS one) and I’m just blown away by how perfectly they combine doctrine and tradition. Lovely pastors like Will are definitely playing a part in our journey too!
Props to Matt for just casually dropping the Donatist controversies into the conversation. Knowing that you're grounded in church history gives me confidence that you're approaching these conversations with sincerity and sobriety
Wow. This interview actually brought me to tears, when he explained the eucharist. I've been meaning to attend a Lutheran service. (I'm a Presbyterian.) I've visited Lutheran churches in Europe and was surprised at how Catholic they seemed. I'm going to find a Missouri Synod church and go soon. What a great series this is!
Unfortunately you are an idiot if you think his view on the eucharist is correct, for he said it needs to be swallowed FOR salvation (10:45) and that is 100% FALSE. Do you understand me? FALSE. Salvation is based on faith in the cross-work of Christ and not on anything we put in our mouth! WAKE UP OH THOU FOOL.
He doesn’t say it needs to be swallowed for forgiveness. When it is swallowed, certainly forgiveness is given, but that is not a requirement for salvation. A child who dies before his or her first communion is not damned. The Word of God works through the preached Word, as well as through Baptism and the Supper. The preached Word and Baptism are the entry for people into faith. Those are the places faith is given, such that a person can believe in Christ’s work on the cross. Communion is what continually gives faith as a person lives as a Christian. Forgiveness and faith are given in the body and blood so that we do not fall away but rather remain steadfast in the faith we were given in baptism.
Hey Matt, I really appreciate how you encourage those you interview to be completely honest/open, and yet still facilitate such a respectful environment on your channel. So often ‘respect’ is associated with softening beliefs, and yet it has to be-must must be-compatible with honesty. This can be difficult, but the success of this series is such an encouraging example!! Thank you!
You really can't get away from Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Christ, whether Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, Luther for 1500 + years and even thru reformation at first there was never a thought that it was a symbol. The Eucharist is always the center of service because it is Christ what else could possibly be central a 45 minute sermon or great concert?
Certain traditions, which I will not name, emphasize long sermons(at least 30-45 minutes). They'll hurry through everything else, likely omitting several stanzas from hymns, just to get to the preacher's long message. In most cases what's preached could have been said in at least half the time and kept the attention of the listeners.
What would Jesus think??? He was all about people and love! Matters of ". . . Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Christ" is irrelevant! I give organized Christian churches 15 to 20 years since young people are leaving churches in droves! The "scared Christians" are dying out! Our young are not afraid!
I especially like when Matt goes into greater theological detail and asks some difficult followup questions. It's the challenging questions that always in interviews bring out the best answers.
@@danm.6970 Yes, we are happy to call her the Mother of God. We are also happy to sing on Good Friday with Bach, "My God is dead, his spirit now he giveth." Jesus is God. No reservations. No Zwinglian allegories.
To address your question on the Eucharist, consider this writing from Ignatius, a disciple and successor to John, the gospel author: “I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]). “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).
It's an immovable fact that the earliest of Christians wholeheartedly believed in the Real Presence of the Eucharist. It's one of the reasons, that after 20 years in Protestantism, I'm now a Russian Orthodox. Who's more likely to be correct----a group of men who *personally* knew the writers of the New Testament----or someone 1500-2000 years on who's merely interpreting the New Testament? It's very telling when 30,000+ protestant denominations all make the claim that they know more than people who were personally discipled by an Apostle.
In the end that is exactly what moved me to become Catholic. I do wish the separation of the orthodox and Catholics could be fully resolved because I like Pope Benedict’s belief that the church needs to breath with both lungs. We both have things of value the other could benefit from. Speaking as a Catholic the west could use at minimum a little theosis and return to the beauty of the ancient Liturgy.
In the Catholic Church forgiveness does not "hang upon" penance. The forgiveness is pronounced first. Then penance follows. A person is truly forgiven by God before any penance is done.
@@chriskontennutzer4473 Could a person do something out of justice, just because it's the right thing to do, whether or not he feels joy? Doesn't God want us to do the right thing regardless of how we feel?
@@chriskontennutzer4473 “Canon 959: In the sacrament of penance the faithful who confess their sins to a legitimate minister, are sorry for them, and intend to reform themselves obtain from God through the absolution imparted by the same minister forgiveness for the sins they have committed after baptism and, at the same, time are reconciled with the Church which they have wounded by sinning.” From the Code of Canon Law Three conditions for forgiveness: 1. Confess your sin 2. Be sorry for your sin 3. Intend to reform (metanoia) Penance is something you do to "make up" for the crime you've committed and to "pay off" some of the punishment you deserve for doing something bad. It's not something you do to earn forgiveness.
As a born and raised Lutheran, I have really enjoyed this series. I truly believe that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ. The demeanor and care you have both shown is exactly how we should love one another. Thank you!
Matt, thank you so much for interviewing Pastor Weedon regarding confessional Lutheranism. I came to Lutheranism after spending nearly 40 years as a Southern Baptist-including seminary training and years in ministry (I am almost 43years old now). After going through a very painful divorce about 3 years ago, I began attending an LCMS church in my home town, not because I planned to become Lutheran, but because I wanted to attend a gospel believing church where nobody knew me or my painful situation. What I found was the comfort of the gospel like I had never experienced it before. The steady preaching of Law and Gospel, the robust assurance of forgiveness through the means of grace, and the Christ-saturated liturgy was exactly what my soul needed. Though it took time to work through the theological differences, God used my faithful pastor, some good books, and (most importantly) the ongoing experience of the gospel through the life and worship of the church to bring me into the membership of the Lutheran church. And I am so thankful he did! Blessings to you in Christ!
jbheavenlyfootman I’m happy for you. I’m glad you found the salve your soul needed. I experienced the same in the Catholic Church through the preached word and the Eucharist. Actually, I got immersed in the Word of God at that time and it was just what I needed. God is good!
BIG YES on his discussion of the Eucharist! Many of the reformers would be turning in their graves if they knew how dimly western protestants treat and view this mystery!
@@boomerthomas4309 That's partly why I switched from TEC to ELCA. The classical Reformed spiritual Real Presence of the Eucharist just didn't seem right, and those that argued for a corporeal Real Presence seemed to be in complete opposition to Anglicanism's early theology. Then you have those pushing for memorialism and transubstantiation, the sheer unpredictability and lack of definition of Anglican theology was chaotic
@@DeFyYing You'll eventually find that ELCA is a political church, not a Christian church. LCMS theology is based on scripture and not politics. Welcome to come on over! Many ELCA families have joined our church in the last few years. God bless you.
I appreciate your insight! Only a power-driven Church (like the Catholic Church) would ignore the words of one of its priests: forcing that priest to leave the Church!
And I appreciate your insight. Yes, only a divinely authoritative Church lead by the POWER of the Holy Spirit (e.g. the Catholic Church) would ignore the words of one of it's human priests and force that human priest to make a decision to: (i) disavow his hereies, come into commuion and then reform the Church from within as was needed; or (ii) walk away.
@@craiganderson8569 Martin Luther was the first person in history who was willing to take on a whole church! The fact that today there are more Protestants in the world than Catholics shows he was not "crazy!!!" Your reply shows that braindead Catholics are not exactly intellectual! Young people won't enter a church after they leave the family home. I give Christianity ten years!
@@kylewdufour Ah yes, heresies like saying that it is wrong to withhold The Blood of Christ in the cup from the layman? It's Rome that had the heresies, not Luther. Sadly to this day Rome continues to withhold The Cup and only allow Communion in one kind (Only the Bread) in many of the Catholic services.
As a Catholic I thoroughly enjoyed these three videos and look forward to full communion with the Missouri Synod and all Christians who believe in the Word of God
@@run4cmt if that were true, then many Eastern Catholics would also not be in communion. The pope of Rome is the pope of the Roman church, and an Eastern Catholic bishop can never be pope. We are in communion with the Roman church laterally. Communion with the LCMS doesn’t seem so far off from Roman Catholicism at all.
@@run4cmtwe will one day be in common together. One day we will sit at the Lamb’s high feast communing together as one body redeemed and brought into eternal life through the blood of the Lamb.
Pastor Weedon is excellent here! That said, speaking as a Lutheran, there’s one piece of Scripture I wish more Lutherans would bring up when discussing the Supper with our Reformed and Baptist brothers and sisters. Paul says this in 1 Corinthians 10:16: “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” I can see how many people aren’t persuaded, just looking at the accounts of the Last Supper, that Jesus isn’t using a metaphor. But I think it’s very hard to match what Paul says to the idea that the Eucharist is *only* a memorial meal.
You're 100% WRONG that Lutherans consider their opponents their brothers and sisters. Maybe today they do, but that's not being consistent with M.L. In his debate, with you know who, Luther himself told them, "we cannot consider you brothers". I have the quote, but you won't request it or care to know anything about it because humans can't stand to be corrected once their mind is made up, right? I thought so.
@@mojo7495 Historical evangelicals (so-called Lutherans) do not consider Dr. Luther to be a saint. He is not ever called St. Martin or St. Luther. He wasn't right about everything, and he wasn't right in everything he said and did.
Kyle West I had that same thought, that there were some easy go-to passages like the one you cited that clearly prove the truth of the real presence and exclude the possibility that Jesus was speaking metaphorically in the words of institution. I don’t at all disagree with Pr. Weedon’s given proof - and I in no way want to criticize the wonderful, wonderful witness he has given in this series of interviews; I mean, he took this opportunity and totally knocked it out of the park - but it seems that, especially for the uninitiated, 1 Cor 10 is a clear and easy way to show what Jesus’ words meant. Again, I don’t want to second guess Weedon’s approach, which is to try to make the case that Jesus words were clear from the time he said them - and it seems that this was Luther’s approach, as well as Chemnitz’s and writers like Sasse’s approach, to start with Jesus on words and then move on chronologically from there to Paul - but when you’re talking to someone who believes that the whole Bible is God’s word, again it seems that 1 Cor 10 would really make someone who believes in representation to rethink their position.
Why would a Reformed Christian take issue with that passage? I understand why a Zwinglist would take issue, but Calvin affirmed a real presence in the supper and rejected the mere memorialist view. Maybe first we should answer, why do Lutherans refuse to fairly represent the Reformed view and instead uncharitably lump us in with Zwingli and the baptists?
"Man ate of the living tree and death came... eat of the dying tree and life comes." LOVE that parallel pointed out! Great conversation about some challenging topics. Thank you! :)
I came from a baptist/non-denominational background, and although I loved my faith, there was always a small absence of spirit that I felt inside. Then, I started going to a lutheran church and I really felt renewed in my faith and I loved taking part in a more conservative liturgy, and frankly it felt more real to me and I felt even more closer to god. May god bless and keep you all! 🙏🏼
because church isn't just about preaching/teaching, it's about actually worshipping God. That's what was missing from your low church / baptist/ evangelical roots. They just don't get it. There's Catholic churches that really take it to the top with traditional Latin Mass, a true communal sacrifice for the Lord. I like and appreciate all of Christianity. I am a bit wary of predestination/Calvinism. Otherwise no real qualms with Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists that aren't outright apostates.
Be careful; you might end up becoming a Lutheran if you look too carefully ;) I'm a former evangelical who converted myself and my family to Lutheranism, and I've never been more certain of the change. Lutheranism takes me to Christ for assurance, whereas in evangelicalism (and sadly even in some of the Calvinism I was in) I was always redirected toward myself and my experiences, works, emotions, etc., for assurance.
From Luther's Commentary on Galatians -- "During struggles of conscience, you must learn to let go of yourselves. You must forget about the Law and good works. They only drive you to look at yourselves. Instead, you must turn your eyes directly toward Christ, the one nailed to the cross You must fix your gaze upon Him."
It seems it would be easy to explain to middle schoolers (which I tried to do for many years as middle school English teacher) the use and understanding of figurative language. I'm not sure I always did a good job, and it would seem when we look at the Words of Institution, we struggle with the format of figurative language. Yes, Jesus used the word "is," so we want to say, "Aha! metaphor!" But His words do not have the metaphorical form. A metaphor helps us understand an unknown by comparing it to a know using the word "is." The Lord is my shepherd. We know what a shepherd is (or the people for whom the Psalm was first written did), so we can then take the nature of a shepherd and understand something about God from it. The Lord is a fortress. God is not a castle, but I can take something about my knowledge of fortresses and from that understand something about God. The words Jesus spoke at the Last Supper do not have this form. This bread is My body. This cup is My blood. The unknown in both are the body and the blood. The known are the bread and the cup. I don't take my knowledge of a body to help me understand the nature of the bread. I don't take my knowledge about blood to help me understand the nature of wine. Instead, the verb "is" here is predicative. Both body and blood are predicate nouns. Or we call them nominatives. They define the bread and the cup. And this to me is the beauty of the doctrine of the Real presence. The elements are still bread and cup, but Christ is truly (really) present in, with, and under the elements not because the elements change but because Jesus said He is. The bread is His body. The cup is His blood of the covenant given for many for the forgiveness of sins.
It’s just like I have been changed by reason of receiving Christ as Lord and Savior. However, my body has not change; my chemical makeup has not change. In like kind, the cup and bread are no longer the same.
I mean even just repeating what Christ said and handing out the supper offends the people who make out the supper to be something other then what Christ said it was. in 1 john 5 I believe he says there are three things that tesify the water/blood/ and spirit and when you read the gospel of john especially from the wedding of cana and through chapter 3 looking for a connection to those things it's really astounding especially considering that most of the gospel of john was written to have meaning of eachother. You'll see keywords and things like purification where Christ turned water to wine in jars of purification and Christ takes out the tax collectors from the church and says that we must be reborn and then uses the word purification when talking about baptism and water and purification in the cross. You will see other keywords like marriage with cana and later when it's talking about baptism at the end of chapter 3 There's always been disagrement about what Christ meant later in the gospel of john were christ said “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." That I don't think after reading chapters 2 and 3 and what is said in 1 john that there is any other way to interpret john 6 talking about anything other then the Lord's supper and what Christ said was clearly offensive to many of the people following him who even seemed to believe many of the other things Christ said and this offense at Christ's words I don't think would make any sense unless he is actually saying we must really eat and drink his body and blood. I think there is something we have been missing in the gospel of John that is simple but we seem to miss as christians simple because we want salvation to be in forms outside of simple word and sacrament. Or even if we believe it we often want to add something to it. But John's gospel and his letter in 1 John have made a huge impact on me even though I'm bad at explaining it.
I literally have been looking for the grammatical language here...thank you...me and my wife are literally at odds over what is is...thank you Zwingli...thank you Clinton...thankyou post modernism
These three videos have been illuminating. I almost want to convert to Lutheranism now. As I study worship more and more, I find myself lining up with them theologically.
I'm kind of in the same boat. Been attending an LCMS church and Bible study, praying and studying a lot on my own. While I don't agree on every single point, it so far has seemed to me that they are as close as it gets to perfect interpretation.
@@SeriousRetail What's stopping me right now honestly is just the fact that I don't feel I can tie myself down to one denomination just yet. Not only am I being pulled in all sorts of directions (I even thought about being Catholic again), but as a church musician, I feel it's not practical to claim one denomination just yet, as I may be called to play an Episcopal service week after I serve at an Assemblies of God church and etc.
@@ConnorTerrell That is a unique position for sure. I'd just encourage you to wrestle with the scriptures, decide what you believe based on the scriptures without any denominational lens, then see which denomination is most true to those beliefs. Not easy, but doable. God bless you on your search
The way Will explains it has helped SO MUCH more. I struggled for years with the whole “ must believe first” thing. I like how Lutheran’s believe that you don’t come in with instant faith. It needs to grow. Plus the concept that WE didn’t choose. God chose US to come and be a believer and follower.
An an LCMS Lutheran in the process of converting to Catholicism, I can safely say that Weedon's one of the best of us, and is a resource for the church at large.
I'm catholic and I 100% agree with you. I am pretty well versed in this stuff (compared to average) and I'd never heard that juxtaposition with the trees and the eating. Cool idea.
Kelly Ramos so the Reverend said Lutherans don’t believe in penance like Roman Catholics because they put more emphasis on the act of penance instead of the crime itself but he says Lutherans can take communion without doing penance. That is why Roman Catholics do penance, because if you are just taking communion without repenting you cheapen the experience for yourself.
@@silver_desperado Not exactly, Christian. Penance is not repentance, penitence or the sacrament of Confession and Absolution. The problem with the RC view, according to Lutherans, is the satisfactions levied on the penitent. Lutherans' biblical focus is on the Absolution - the freedom of the Gospel declaration of forgiveness for Christ's sake. Lutherans would/should never say to the penitent, "Your sins are forgiven, but now go and..." That would be taking away with the left hand what had been given with the right.
@@silver_desperado We are accountable and must obey and keep the Commandments of God, but we try to rightly divide Law and Gospel. One condemned in their sins, broken and contrite, believing in Christ for forgiveness needs to hear the Gospel, not more Law. The Law of God was doing it's work in crushing the person in their sins which led to confession and then absolution. The fruits worthy of repentance naturally follow. They are taught and lived, but it's not the right moment when a person is absolved.
@@silver_desperado Many Catholics if not most Catholics do not do penance before Mass. Who goes to confession any more? It's sad that Lutherans don't want to take the time of day to go to private confession. But the start of Eucharist in Lutheran churches includes general confession; the pastor forgives/ blesses everyone [even little kids who do not know what is going ].
I have been on a CRAZY religious journey lately... There was no doubt Jesus is indeed the Christ, however I've been tormenting myself trying to find out what expression of Christianity was the most true, accurate representation of the Church that Christ started. One day I thought I was leaning Eastern Orthodox, one day I thought I was leaning Roman Catholic. This video alone, has given me peace. Will has explained Lutheranism so beautifully, and it truly appears to be the true church of Christ. I've reached out to my local LCMS church to sit with me and answer some question so that I can truly begin to embrace the Lutheran Church. I still adore my non denominational brethren, but I can't help but feel returning to tradition will only help strengthen my relationship with God. Thank you so much for this video Matt, and may God truly bless anyone reading this. God is good!
You may want to watch a few videos by Michael Cumbie, John Bergsma or Douglas Beaumont. These ex protestant pastors talk about their spiritual journey & where they finally ended up. Peace
Speaking with a Lutheran Pastor is a very good way to learn more and get your questions answered. If you want to do some of your own research, I would suggest The Augsburg Confession. It is not an easy read, but it uses the Bible and the very early Church Fathers to defend the positions taken by the Lutherans at the time of Martin Luther. It is part of a larger volume known as the Book of Concord. It has changed the hearts of many people.
Thank you for doing this tour and sit down with Pr Weedon. @WilliamWeedon Also thank you for joining the Crucial Conversation podcast @CruxProductions and the KFUO Coffee Hour @KFUOradio Your questions were very good and respectful and I appreciated the degree to which you listened and considered the responses. I look forward to checking out your tours and sit downs with other traditions. God's blessings!
I never used the Baltimore Catechism, but I was curious about the statements made here and looked up the section on confession. Not surprised, but it is terribly misrepresented by the priest in the video. From the BC: "We are bound to confess all our mortal sins, but it is well also to confess our venial sins." "If without our fault we forget to confess a mortal sin, our Confession is worthy, and the sin is forgiven; but it must be told in Confession if it again comes to our mind." "He who has willfully concealed a mortal sin in Confession must not only confess it, but must also repeat all the sins he has committed since his last worthy Confession." The condemnation is clearly only for willingly concealing a serious sin. This is considered to invalidate the sacrament because it is being approached with deception, not repentance. Remember that only MORTAL sins are required to be confessed (those whose nature actually breaks our relationship with God). And forgetting a sin but keeping an attitude of repentance results in the sin being FORGIVEN by default, not retained. The sacrament is invalidated only if the one confessing PURPOSEFULLY conceals a mortal sin - which makes sense because he is actually refusing reconciliation to God. I would very much like to know if this priest disagrees with the actual text. No ill will intended, but please don't just take this man's word about the Catholic Church without researching it.
Yes. He is a nice man in the video, but _he seriously misrepresented tha Catechism_ as saying "if youforget a sin you now have an extra sin"......just not true! ......demonstrably not true! thank you. But the pastor's characterisation of Luther's endless agonising over guilt depends upon this misunderstanding being maintained. In fact Luther was probably psychologically disturbed by his violent father.
Hey, thanks for the correction. I haven’t looked at it in years and my memory obviously simplified it and thereby distorted. The teaching at the time of the Reformation, though, might have been different (I am assuming it was) because this became a key point that the Lutherans objected to and wrote in their Confessions.
@@willcweedon Hey! Nice to see your response! I'm loving the interview, for the record and thank you for doing this. I'll try to research this issue further. As a Catholic, I continue to pray for reconciliation between our faiths and I'm confident it will come in time. Please pray for us as well!
@@willcweedon Just for what was officially taught by the Church in the years surrounding the Reformation: From the 8th Session of the Council of Florence (1439, Bull of Union with the Armenians): "The fourth sacrament is penance. Its matter is the acts of the penitent, which are threefold. The first is contrition of heart, which includes sorrow for sin committed, with the resolve not to sin again. The second is oral confession, which implies integral confession to the priest of *all sins that are remembered.* The third is satisfaction for sins in accordance with the judgment of the priest which is ordinarily done by prayer, fasting and almsgiving. The form of this sacrament are the words of absolution which the priest pronounces when he says: I absolve you. The minister of this sacrament is a priest with authority to absolve, which is either ordinary or by commission of a superior." From the Fourteenth Session of the Council of Trent (1551): "Wherefore, while the faithful of Christ are careful to confess all the sins *which occur to their memory* , they without doubt lay them all bare before the mercy of God to be pardoned: whereas *they who act otherwise, and knowingly keep back certain sins* , such set nothing before the divine bounty to be forgiven through the priest: for if the sick be ashamed to show his wound to the physician, his medical art cures not that which it knows not of." (Council of Trent, Session 14, Chapter 5) From the Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566): "Sins Concealed: So important is it that confession be entire that if the penitent confesses only some of his sins and *wilfully neglects* to accuse himself of others which should be confessed, he not only does not profit by his confession, but involves himself in new guilt. Such an enumeration of sins cannot be called sacramental confession; on the contrary, the penitent must repeat his confession, not omitting to accuse himself of having, under the semblance of confession, profaned the sanctity of the Sacrament. Sins Forgotten: But should the confession seem defective, either because *the penitent forgot some grievous sins, or because, although intent on confessing all his sins, he did not examine the recesses of his conscience with sufficient accuracy* , he is not bound to repeat his confession. It will be sufficient, when he recollects the sins which he had forgotten, to confess them to a priest on a future occasion. It should be noted, however, that we are not to examine our consciences with careless indifference, or to be so negligent in recalling our sins as to seem as if unwilling to remember them. Should this have been the case, the confession must by all means be made over again." (Roman Catechism, The Sacraments: Penance) Obviously, as with the practices regarding indulgences, there were probably abuses/misunderstandings of the Sacrament by local priests/faithful (part of why one of the biggest reforms from Trent was the formation of seminaries), but on the level of the official teaching of the Church, it was always understood that Confession of all your sins only meant the ones you remember, and that there was no adding guilt to a forgotten sin (just intentional withholding).
I stumbled across your channel this week and have watched nearly a dozen of your videos already, however this three part series on the LMCS was exceedingly fascinating. Pastor Will truly has a heart for the Lord and I can tell you do too. Thank you for this channel and God's blessings on your ministry.
Hello, I’ve been more Lutheran for the last two years (“NEWtheran”) and Pr. Weedon has DEFINITELY helped me understand my position I’ve been falling more into theologically. In the grander scheme of the church and coming more from a Baptist/Non-denominational background, I’m becoming more and more proud to embrace the Lutheran tradition as my own
Seth - I am a (raised) *Lutheran* currently in a contemporary Church. And while I joke with my close Lutheran friends that I am a Lutheran plant within a C3 Church - I appreciate and love both movements - we are all one body. I do love the Gospel distilled into Lutheran theological understanding and writings. Especially the deep understanding of Grace and the bondage of the will. Love the fact that Pastors are thoroughly trained in exegesis and hermeneutics. Also still the love and appreciation of good red wine and beer - all in thanksgiving and moderation!.
Me too! I attend an LCMC church (Lutheran Congregations in Ministry for Christ) and one of the most precious, meaningful things for me from the very first was going up, with the congregation, each Sunday, to receive the body and blood of Jesus. I felt so nourished in the the Lord. Coming from non-denominational and charismatic churches I appreciate the fullness, beauty and well rounded order of our worship services in focus on Jesus, His Word, the Gospel, prayer for the saints and communing around the LORD'S table, then being sent out with a blessing and the charge to 'go be the church'.
From a Catholic perspective, I'll say this... It is difficult to say that Luthor was preserving the traditional Church when he specifically broke the chain of authority established by Christ through this Apostles. No matter what corruptions were present in the Church (and I'm not saying there were none), if you delegitimize the authority itself, you have cut down the tree which props up all Christianity. Without that connection, we are left to our own devices and biases to define our faith, which has historically resulted in drastically divergent beliefs. Catholics are no strangers to corruption and even heresy - it has peppered our entire history because God's mission has been entrusted to sinful men. God - not being a great fool - has preserved His Truth despite our fallen nature. I cannot believe that the Apostles corrupted Jesus' message as they were the ones personally ordained and charged with spreading it (Jesus is not a failure), and if the message was corruptible just beyond their generation, we cannot trust any version of Christianity, no matter how old. The authoritative connection is the only model that makes sense if Jesus was serious about spreading Truth. I'm saying this with all the charity I can muster and no animosity intended. In all the studying I've done and all the questions I've had, I've never been convinced by a Church held together by personal interpretation.
John Michel I’m not Catholic and may disagree with some of what you said (I’ll think it over), but this was a helpful contribution to my understanding of the Catholic church. Thank you!
But had there not been several reformers before Luther, and several anti popes as well. And was it not the catholic church (Leo X) that exkommunicated luther? Not the other way around. Luther was catholic himself. I see it being repeated now when kiril is excommunicating the greek orthodox church and while doing so accusing the ones being excommunicated for dividing the church. I think it was the pope Leo X dividing the church just as i think it’s Kiril dividing the orthodox church right now. Why are you saying that Luther was the one dividing the church? He just wanted reformation, not dividing.
philen alexandersson Other reformers sure, but they didn’t start their own church with its own liturgy and structure and beliefs. They changed it from the inside out.
I'm a Lutheran. I don't believe Luther's initial objective was to divide the Church. He was attempting to discuss issues and practices with intention of reforming those that were in error. The Church excommunicated Luther and refused an honest discussion of the issues and did not want to reform (until later).
I was baptized and confirmed Presbyterian, and married Roman Catholic. But the very first service I went to in an LCMS church brought me such joy! It seemed complex that first morning, but a lady in the same pew, pulled me over & walked me through that liturgical service. I was home.
Your buildup for this video concerned me as a Roman Catholic. But watching it it reassures me that Lutherans are what I understood, that is an inspired faith but differing from the Roman church. Bless you all. I wish you well.
There is a precision in language that is needed to advance a discussion. Whether you agree or disagree for the purposes of discussion it is necessary to be precise where you are moving from. An example would be my senior thesis of A Social History of US soldiers in the China Burma India Theater during World War 2. It allows everyone to understand what the person is starting from: i.e. Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Catholic or Charismatic Catholic. I mean no disrespect to any of the above but to know what we're talking about some precision is needed.
Lutheran was also a slight from the catholic church toward luther and his followers , with rome claiming luther was a. Heretic.. Didn't know about roman Catholic was also a slight.. God bless
@@alhilford2345 - "The primary and most important duty of pastors is to guard everything pertaining to the integral and inviolate maintenance of the Catholic faith, the faith which The Holy ROMAN Church professes and teaches, without which it is impossible to please God." - Pope Pius X, Editae Saepe (#21) May 26, 1910
“Ignatius, for his part, while remaining Bishop of Antioch, was also heading for the martyrdom that he was to suffer in Rome. In his Letter to the Romans, he refers to the Church of Rome as 'She who presides in love,' a deeply meaningful phrase. ... In truth, presiding in faith is inseparably linked to presiding in love. 107 A.D.
Good job here Matt. There are many capable, well spoken Missouri Lutheran pastors that would have done a really good job with this. But, in this instance Pastor Weedon was the perfect man for you to talk with.
Just beginning in my journey of faith. Was an atheist, turned satanist (not luciferian) for years. Over a while the Lord revealed himself to me, in his way. I know Christianity is the truth, but these videos are helping me a ton to figure out which denomination is the one for me.
Jesus is who He says He is! Glad you found your way home. The denomination won't matter much, just keep the faith, trust your soul to Jesus. God bless you for answering the calling of your conscience.
I'm going to have to listen to this series multiple times to understand the denomination I grew up in! So much information there! Thank you Matt & Pastor Weedon
I'm with Matt on this 100%, I don't agree with a lot of what Pastor Weedon is saying but I recognize his commitment and his perspective and absolutely respect it.
parallaxgames I agree. I particularly disagree with his explanation about the development of doctrine. The doctrine of the Trinity took time to articulate. The apostles would not have had the same understanding as Christians in the 4th or 5th centuries.
@@CIST3 Why? The 12 had Jesus saying that He is God: " The Father and I are one " "before the world began I AM " clearly seperating Himself from the Father and monotheism. That is the Trinity.
@@markhorton3994 Hi Mark, Because to this day the East and West still disagree on who sent the Holy Spirit. Was it the Father or was it the Son or was it both?
@@CIST3 It took time to articulate in the specific form of the Nicaen creed, because that was an articulation specifically developed to counter all of the various controversies and heresies that rose up surrounding it. The apostles probably wouldn't have given so much thought to some of the logically necessary points that manifested from the defense of biblical trinitarianism, but the apostles and many other contemporaries definitely fit into the category of nicaen trinitarian.
@@CIST3 filioque... How many gospels record Jesus telling his disciples after His resurrection to remain in Jerusalem until He sends His Spirit? How much more proof do the Orthodox need for this? (not that I am saying you are Orthodox... but it is plain as day in Scripture, no need for theological hurdles to figure it out).
Re: participating in the Lord's Supper - 1 Corinthians 10:16. The Apostle Paul affirms exactly what the pastor says here about what Christ gives us. Luther follows the early church's teaching here.
It is still hard to convince my baptist/mennonite raised wife...of this. Why is "is" so hard for people to get? Sorry...sarcasm is my love language...which is probably the real problem. Matt was awesome...so was Will
It's the same problem, William, that we see in John chapter 6. I spent much of my Christian life accepting memorialism in respect to the supper until I read up on Marburg which lead me to enquire into the Christology and church fathers Luther was referencing. When I read the likes of Justin on this I realized that Zwingli and later Calvin had got it so wrong. Paul in 1 Corinthians 10 concludes what Jesus is saying in the supper; the place where creation and Christ are currently joined in anticipation of what's coming.
The Eucharist is definitely held as a mystery in the Catholic Church as well. Just because we believe it is the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ doesn't mean we pretend to understand how this miracle occurs.
jonathan ramont in one of Matt’s other videos, he talked to a reformed pastor in Colorado, and I believe he said that it was totally symbolic and that the bread and grape juice were not sacred..I could be wrong that is my recollection But I mean, the pastor also said that there was no over arching church body or leadership..so each congregation is different i guess, and to know the views, you would have to take it on a case by case basis
If someone says hey you, dummy..why do you think this..I would rather be convicted of taking Jesus and his words over seriously(if thats possible) than not taking him seriously enough... What do you brothers think?
Keep reading that Book of Concord there on your desk, it changed my life because I tried to fight it and it won because of the Scriptures. Thank so much for these videos with Pastor Will. God's peace be with you
I have to agree. I grew up in the Lutheran church, but I never truly understood Lutheran Theology until I got a copy of the Book of Concord and started reading it. Then I read through the entire book, testing everything against the Scriptures, and I soon realized that this IS, truly, the faith of the Scriptures. The Scriptures were opened up in a way that I couldn't have imagined. This brilliant confession of faith is like a spotlight shining on the Scriptures. I also began to read some of the Apostolic, Ante-nicene, and Nicene Fathers, and I was amazed to see that they all basically taught the same catholic faith. So, along with the others, I would urge you to continue reading that Book of Concord with the Scriptures in hand. It is a confession of Christ-centered, cross-focused Christianity.
That was super beautiful. Really amazing stuff. What stuck with me the most was when Will said to the effect, how can we continue in sin, for at some point we don't even know who we are anymore. That was by far the most powerful message he brought as an anthem of Christians in any Christian church.
I love his explanation of the communion. The Bible doesn't say it is a symbol. Neither did Jesus say this bread becomes my body he said it is my body. He didn't say this wine becomes my blood but it is my blood. This explanation that he gives is the most biblical I've ever heard.
Like Jesus was not fully man who then transformed from fully man to fully God with only flesh and blood remaining as "accidents". More so, "mystical union" in ways we do not understand yet simply accept.
Alright this is awesome, thanks for sharing !! You seem to have a genuine gift for the ministry of bringing these communities and individuals together, to have real conversations. As a life-long RC, I didn’t know the Lutheran tradition saw itself as being the actual, western “Catholic” Church. (This makes sense, since Luther was a Catholic priest before the Reformation). It seems both the RC church and Lutherans believe the other church turned a corner and went another route, in terms of doctrine, theology, teachings, etc. Very interesting indeed. Also you said something very important: “I didn’t like or agree with everything he said, but I liked him.” Again thanks for sharing this.
I have an enormous problem with closed communion. Even as a Catholic, and even though I accept my church's teaching on transubstantiation, I think I'd agree with you on this point. I look at it this way: Jesus didn't put any conditions on who could eat at the Last Supper. Even Judas was there. And if the Eucharist is indeed supposed to be spiritual medicine, then why would you deny it to someone who may need or benefit from it? It's not supposed to be a reward for jumping through the right theological hoops. it bothers me when the churches cite 1 Corinthians to fence off communion. Paul was talking about abuses of the communal meal at one church, not laying down law for the ages. Moreover, just after Jesus calls himself the Bread of Life, he adds that he will never turn away anyone who comes to him. That, to me, is a crystal clear call to an open communion table. But I do agree with the pastor that Jesus wasn't speaking metaphorically. Look at John 6, when Jesus insists that his flesh is real food and his blood real drink, and that unless you eat and drink of him, you will have no life in you. His own disciples said it was a hard teaching, and many of his followers left him. If he were speaking figuratively, surely he would have told those who were leaving to come back, that he didn't mean it literally. But he didn't. So I think there's something there that he's forcing us to take seriously, whether we like it or not. Bottom line for me is this: Jesus came to save not the righteous but sinners. How can he save the sinners if only the righteous are allowed at the table?
We all have some aspects of faith that trouble us. That is why we have authority. Satan ( may God rebuke him) was troubled with some aspects of faith also.
We are actually like both and like neither. Lutherans might agree with RC on regenerational baptism and forgiveness in Holy Communion. We do not believe the elements change in substance and we do not believe Christ is sacrificed again in every "Mass." Lutherans have a fundamentally different understanding about grace re: Roman Catholic. My understanding is that in RC theology grace is a power that is given in baptism and the Eucharist which we then use to do the merits needed to have our daily sins forgiven. Technically, in RC theology only original sin is forgiven in baptism. The rest of sin must be atoned for through penance. Lutherans believe grace is in God's nature by which He fully and completely forgives all our sins without any merit or worthiness in us. We have a similar understanding of grace as do the Reformed particularly in that we are divine monergists (unlike the Arminian camp that holds to varying degrees of synergism). We would disagree with 5 point Calvinist (Reformed) on limited atonement (double predestination), irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints. We believe Christ's atonement is for everyone. We believe grace can be and is resisted. We believe is it possible for the believer to walk away from faith.
@@thethirdjegs But that's a big "if not for." It's the foundational difference. And the reason why Lutherans believe they are the true Catholic church. The RCC - according to Luther - had deviated from the true faith of the solas. When they refused to return, he went forward (or, more accurately, backward) to the true faith without them. (Btw, I'm not Lutheran. Just explaining the logic.)
I’ve really enjoyed all of these talks and learning about the Lutheran church and its belief systems. In fact I am a 1 year follower of Christ and going to a non denominational who hungers for more gospel, more Old Testament and more new. The more I hear and understand the more I want to know. The more I know the more I understand my sinful nature and pray for more Holy Spirit to help me be what God intended me to be. I truly call this state that all of this had produced freedom! God is Holy, Holy, Holy!
God bless on your new journey brother! I was non denominational for a long time before moving to LCMS Lutheran. I'm only a layman, but if you have questions or want to talk, shoot me a PM.
This was my favorite series of these so far. I look at Pastor Will and Matt and I see two brothers living after the honest convictions of their own consciences. To paraphrase Agrippa, “In a short time you will persuaded me to become a Lutheran.” I see the beauty of their tradition even though I cannot read the Word the same way as him. Thank you so much for doing these. -J
Pastor Will’s “Talk to the boss” comment made me literally laugh out loud! Haha. Thanks to both of you for a compelling and edifying series of videos. God bless!
I have reconciled the idea that the bread and cup somehow become the body and blood of Christ with this analogy (I am not Roman Catholic). When I gave my life to Christ, His Spirit came to reside in me. If you were to run a chemical analysis of my body, you would find that nothing changed chemically. However, I have been sanctified and set apart for Christ. In a similar manner, when the cup and bread have been consecrated and set aside for sacramental use, there is no physical change to those objects. However, just like me, the bread and blood are now different from what they were before.
DIXIE HALL----Have you ever considered finding out what the Catholic Church Actually teaches ? These pages are full of childish and evil descriptions of it. Do you ever read the glowing comments posted by converts that find they have been lied to for years about the 2000 year old church ? Protestants that really know and love the bible become joyous and devoted Catholics.
The scripture clearly teaches that we will not know all things - God is sovereign and some things we must just receive as they are, as He said them to us. Christ said "this is my body" and "this is my blood." So, it "is." "Is" means "is." If He wanted us to know how it "is" then He would have told us in His Word. He did not tell us how it "is." He only said "this is." He only told us that it "is" and that it "is" shed for the remission of sins. He also said that if we do not receive His Word as a child we shall not enter the Kingdom of God - children just believe it and so do I. The Bible says what it is says and does so plainly. Believe it plainly.
Brother Matt, thank you for the show. I personally would love to see you interview Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Mike Schmidt, Bishop Robert Baron, Dr. Brent Pitre. Pick your choice. I would personally choose Dr. Hahn as he is a convert and understand both sides really well of Protestant and Catholic. All the best brother, may God had always be with you and bless everything you do.
Thanks for this set of videos! I really appreciate that you were willing to press Pastor Weedon on the practice of closed communion, rather than politely talk around it. It's something we folks in the LCMS wrestle with and it was good to hear him discuss the issue.
Luther is famously quoted saying: ”justification [Luther's understanding] is the article by which the church stands and falls.” Question: Why did the Church stand for 1500 years without having Luther's version of Justification? Why the Catholic Church stands until this day but the Protestant movement fell almost immediately disintegrating into hundreds of sects?
Actually...Luther never said that. As for the "so many sects" .... what you today know as the Roman Catholic Church came into existence at the Council of Trent, after the Reformation, in response to the Reformation. Further, the numbers of splinter from the Reformation event are rather easily explained. Was Luther or Calvin right? Was Luther or the radical reformers correct? The various splinter groups derive from Calvinism or the Radical Reformation. People want to make it sound "oh so complex" but it is not. And as we all know the Roman Communion is splintered asunder across the globe with a nearly "anything goes" just as long as everyone still salutes the Papacy, you can get away with virtually any heresy you want, as seen across Roman Catholic institutions of higher learning across the USA. So, a bit of realism is called for.
@@pault.mccain6637 Luther said/wrote: quia isto articulo stante stat Ecclesia, ruente ruit Ecclesia-“Because if this article [of justification] stands, the church stands; if this article collapses, the church collapses.” (WA 40/3.352.3) [Source: Alister McGrath]. Apparently, according to Lutherans, the church had collapsed the instant it was founded by Christ and the Holy Spirit and revived by Luther. Really??????
@@pault.mccain6637 Let's break your comment down: First, "Actually...Luther never said that." well maybe not verbatim but he definitely said it in essence (according to Lutherans). Second, "what you today know as the Roman Catholic Church came into existence at the Council" nice soundbite I heard that many times from Dr. Horton & Dr. Clark at Westminster Seminary, but that argument doesn't hold water because if "what I today know as the Roman Catholic Church came into existence at the Council [1545-63]" how come Luther in 1517 was protesting against something that wasn't in existence?? Third, "the Roman Communion is splintered asunder across the globe with a nearly "anything goes" just as long as everyone still salutes the Papacy" The Church Catholic is united by its doctrine and only those who remain in union with the successor of Peter are in the bosom of the Church, you would have to provide some specifics to substantiate your claim. Finally, "as seen across Roman Catholic institutions of higher learning across the USA", there are priests and theologians who are not faithful to the doctrine of the Church but it doesn't follow from it that the Church is not one nor that her Faith is not one.
I really enjoyed this part of the interview. So much deep feeling. It really spoke to me. Especially when he talked about the body and blood and how life comes through eating and how death came in the beginning through eating. I also love how he discusses the remission of sins through communion because the body and blood are there. Ive always believed its a mystery , i dont claim to know, but id never thought of it in this way.Nothing speaks louder than someone who loves God and this man's love for God really shines. A real joy to see and I learned some things that I will keep with me.
not only that but Adam and Eve ate with a lack of faith in God's word and we eat with faith in his word. We fell because of lack of faith in God and we are restored to God by faith. The spirit of God hovers of the water in the first chapter of Genesis and God judged the world with a flood and killed off all but I believe 7 people and noah made a sacrafice and God vowed that he wouldn't destroy the world with a flood again and made a bow in the clouds to remember the covenant he made. Then with this same water we receive the holy spirit and are renewed before God. Abraham was given a promise that through his offspring salvation would come to the world and God commanded him to sacrifice Issac and as Abraham went to do it God stopped him but God doesn't withhold himself from us and sacrifices his Son Jesus that the sins of the world would be forgiven.
When he speaks of the Eucharist he captures a great explanation of it and it is very similar to what Catholics teach. John 6 reinforces this. It is John 6:66 where he doubles down.
Lutherans tend to be averse to John 6, since Luther surrendered John 6 to Zwingli at the Marburg Colloquy. Zwingli argued that since John 6 was prior to the institution of the supper, the Jews had no context for understanding the teaching as anything other than metaphorical, and more specifically, Jesus' claim to be the bread from heaven was identification with the manna, which was bread without the promise of forgiveness attached, thus was a symbolic communication. Luther, for his part, rested his argument on the plain meaning of the verba - this is my body (or, as he by legend carved into the table at Marburg, hoc est corpus meum) - which he repeated over and against Zwingli's rationalist arguments. I think Luther was wrong to surrender John 6 to Zwingli. The text foreshadows the institution of the supper and is plain as day what is necessary for salvation, even going so far as he says in 6:29, "the work of God is this: to believe in the One whom He has sent." Do we believe? Do we receive in faith? Or do we argue out of it rationally? Nonetheless, it's rare to find Lutheran apologists citing John 6 for the Supper - not because they don't know the argument, it's just contrary to the tradition, and in our traditional view is unnecessary and weaker than just arguing for faith in Jesus' words.
Will Wheedon’s argument for the Real Presence was interesting because I’ve heard better ones, even from Catholics purely appealing to Scripture. Here’s a handful: - When He first told His apostles that they would have to eat His body, they were very uncomfortable and said it was a “hard saying” (John 6:60). A bunch of people argued as a result, but Jesus never (at any time throughout the NT) corrected their understanding. They definitely seemed to be taking Him literally. - The etymology of the way Paul talks about the Eucharist is extremely literal in the Greek: from the word for “is,” to the word for “body” to the word for “eat” (which literally means ‘gnaw’) - The fact that Paul says the Eucharist can “bring judgment” on someone who drinks it unworthily: how can something which is just a symbol do that? You might lean into the fact that Jesus does speak in metaphor sometimes - like when He says that He would tear down the temple and raise it up in three days (He was referring to His body, not the actual Temple in Jerusalem). But He sometimes speaks literally, like when He told His disciples He would have to die. So how do we know when He is or isn’t speaking literally? To me, it makes perfect sense to settle that question by asking what Christians at the time believed: and they definitely did believe in the Real Presence, as early as 110 A.D with Ignatius of Antioch (who was John’s disciple): “These people abstain from the Eucharist as well as from prayer because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again from the dead.”
I really want to be positive about this, but there are a couple things this pastor misses about the Catholic Church: 5:59 - this is incorrect. The Catholic Church does not teach penances are necessary for absolution. In fact, telling someone to make their sin public to everyone's knowledge (returning the cow, turning one's self into the authorities, etc) is breaking the seal of confession and is a mortal sin on the part of the priest. 7:33 - an important distinction here. The child in the illustration does not forget a sin, but out of shame withholds confessing the sin. Therefore, he is committing sacrilege by distrusting the mercy of God and withholding sins he thinks are unforgivable.
I hope this isn't rude of me, but may I - as a Lutheran (WELS) - elaborate further on a couple points? Concerning the labyrinthine complexity of our theology: Our theology is complex because God is complex. But at it's core it's dead simple - Jesus is God. Jesus's death and resurrection forgives freely. Praise Jesus. Concerning the Real Presence in the Eucharist: We all agree that whichever one of us is wrong about this is freely forgiven. But we think we're objectively right, and we want to correct people who we think are objectively wrong. If you're curious about our reasons for this position, check out Dr. Jordan B Cooper's essay at "watch?v=sCEP-z4rGSU". Concerning contemporary worship styles: There's nothing wrong with contemporary worship styles. Some of our churches use contemporary worship styles. But our traditional worship style has so much theological symbolism, why would we get rid of it? Thanks for putting this series together Matt. God bless!
Absolutely brother! Amen. I also wanted to hear that it is simple in Jesus on the cross for our sins, crucified, died, and risen again! I also wanted to hear him explain the 5 solas a little better, or incorporate them, but I can't argue with how he presented it at all! Christmas blessings to you!
This Orthodox Lutheran take is scriptural and edifying, makes perfect sense to anyone who hasn't been indoctrinated against it by a competing seminary, believe me
Unfortunately you are an idiot if you think the Lutheran view on the eucharist is correct, for he said it needs to be swallowed FOR salvation (@) and that is 100% FALSE. Do you understand me? FALSE. Salvation is based on faith in the cross-work of Christ, PERIOD, and not on anything we put in our mouth! WAKE UP OH THOU FOOL. "Scriptural and edifying" my FOOT!
@@mojo7495 you're the idiot, he said that you can take a communion if you already saved or you accept the presence of the eucharist, Eucharist is part of God's grace not our own works.! you're not acting like a christian
@@mojo7495 No, he didn't. I wish you would listen. The WHOLE time, the WHOLE statement he gave was that Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. That Christ comes to us via His own words to us. (Again faith by hearing the Word of God). I wish you could pay better attention. In all fairness, I'm LCMS, and well versed on our beliefs. But I can assure you, what you are saying, is errant. Period. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have, but screaming and calling someone raka when you clearly misunderstood them, is... well, there was someone who said something about that in the bible somewhere. Go spend some time finding and reading about that. You need more fruits in keeping with true repentance (like peace, patience, gentleness, etc.).
I do too, except I think he got a little mixed up on the "U" of the Calvinist T.U.L.I.P. in the first sit-down video (2nd in the series). The "U" stands for Unconditional Election and not Unconditional Grace. Lutherans would not agree with Unconditional Election, rejecting in the Formula of Concord the idea of Election being like a military muster (or in modern terms, my own, as God arbitrarily picking the petals off a flower - "I love you. I love you not."). God may not have made us privy to the conditions, if any, concerning Election - but that doesn't mean that such conditions do not exist. It's like saying that since the Bible doesn't mention strawberry ice cream, strawberry ice cream doesn't exist - which would of course be false to which many widening midriffs can attest.. Other than that slight mix up concerning the T.U.L.I.P. (which is not a Lutheran construct anyway), Pastor Weedon did a tremendous job.
Have so enjoyed this set of videos on the lutherin church - so eye opening and brings an understanding of the roots of the reformation. Thank you for your passionate work on these videos, really appreciate them.
I already deleted my comment of three years ago because I was full of ignorance of my own church. Christ has set me free and has salvage me with His true body and blood that I receive every week in my mexican lutheran church. I can encounter Jesus every time I come to the Lords table. I didnt understand this great mystery and I dont understand still but at least I believe it fully and it has strengthen my faith and my confidence in Christ, resting in His work and his holy word and sacraments that give us the real substantial presence of our risen Lord. Thank God for the lonely way of the humble yet profound lutheran church, Amen.
Id argue Lutherans and Orthodox are much closer than it seems. The main disagreements seem to be merely polemic imo. E.g. sola scriptura is not literally only Bible, but you can not have things contradicting it. In orthodoxy you have focus on the tradition which agreed on the modern Bible, which today would be seen best in the rites of the church and, of course, the scripture itself.
As a new Lutheran, I really liked these discussions with Pastor Weedon. I was also impressed with Matt's interviews with a pastor of an African-American Baprist church in Alabama. You can hear more from Pastor Weedon by logging into "The Word of the Lord Ensures Forever."
@Matthew Bless In my experience, those who condemn people for being "ridiculous" are usually very zealous for the traditions of their fathers. (Gal. 1:14)
@@alhilford2345 Regarding the question about the different Lutheran denominations (is that the right word?) because we have differences among ourselves that are large enough and important enough we want to be treated separately, yet not so large that they are totally separate (if that makes any sense). i.e. we agree on the most important things, hence still Lutheran, but disagree on relatively less important things (hence the need to be separate from one another)
He has a multi part series from the "Issues, Etc" radio show on the major parts of the liturgy and it is absolutely fantastic. You'd should look it up.
Lutheran vs Eastern Orthodox, that's my dilemma at the moment. I can never go back to the American Evangelical/non-denominational churches. Not after studying history, and learning about the Eucharist. The Eucharist is something much more than I was taught by Evangelicals.
@@StBindo I feel for you. It's been quite enlightening but also difficult trying to sort through church history. A friend of mine converted to orthodoxy a few years ago. I became disillusioned with modern American protestantism probably 14 years ago, and bounced around churches. Something always felt off. Then I went to my friends orthodox church and I said to myself, "this is how church is supposed to be done." But the problem is I'm turned off by alot of things that go along with orthodoxy.
@Michael Ratnam i really considered RC earlier this year. I mean I read up on it, watched hours and hours of videos and debated friends of mine(who are all ex-catholic orthodox converts) and I really believe that RC is somewhat close to original Christianity, but not close enough. Too many changes. A big sticking point for me was Papal authority over the other Bishops. I do believe the Bishop of the west was first among equals, but they were equal nonetheless. Plus norvus ordo. I'm trying to get away from those kinds of churches in protestantism.
"Man ate from a living tree and death came. Man eats from the fruit of a dead tree, the cross, and life comes"
Man that's beautiful
Elyk Ledesma yeah that was something else really.
This brought me more into agreement with the Lutheran church on this issue than all the rational arguments.
Josh, the word “fruit” here refers to “what is produced”. Think of Fruit of the loom, which is cloth. The fruit of your labor might be whatever your labor produces. The fruit of your loins is... well.. children. Get it? The fruit of the cross is the crucifixion of Christ, which is where the Eucharist comes from.
@Josh For us it isn't. For Christ it was. It was His work that produces fruit.
@@xnihilo1044 Oh yeah we are more like Jonah under his bottle gourd plant. Which we did not work for but if grew for us in a day and it died in a night
This pastor is DEFINITELY a Christ-driven man.....kudos to him for his genuine enthusiasm....the LCMS needs more of this man in our parishes!
Agreed. Mine just passed recently... he was a great man. Good to see other pastors fighting the good fight and keeping the faith.
I was born and raised Southern Baptist and always felt “absent from God” because I was never “moved” by the Spirit. In my early 20’s I went by chance (now understanding Spirit led) to a Lutheran church, and immediately felt at home. The ritual of liturgy and holy sacrament spoke to me in a way that evangelicalism never has. The Lord indeed works in mysterious ways. Amen.
You are not home yet with Christ. Pray to the Holy Spirit. Lutheran church was founded by a man not by Jesus Himself
@@danpan001 Is the holy ghost telling you this. Or the indoctrination of your cult?
@@irsshill4502 It is a fact the the Lutheran denomination was founded by Mr. Martin Luther.
@@danpan001 what is the church Jesus founded then, in your view? What church do you go to?
@@the1_MatthiasGray Christ only founded One Church. Read Matthew 16
As a recent-ish convert to Christianity, I am in what CS Lewis described as the mere Christianity phase, where I'm in the building, but I still don't know which room I belong in. I want to thank Matt for taking the time to walk around knocking on the doors with me and asking the questions that I don't know I need to be asking, and for doing so so graciously. I don't think the Lutheran room is the one for me, but I would like to point out how awesomely cool it is that this Will Weedon guy is in the same building. The passion, friendliness, and humility are all contagious, and highly appreciated.
Choose your Frosted Flakes wisely.
Well, I am sad that the Lutheran perspective of things is not for you, but I still hope you find your way to the Lord in a community that you love and that loves you.
Get a copy of Baltimore Catechism #2
I would of course recommend the Catholic room, I somewhat recently (2.5 years ago) came over from the Calvinist room which I arrived at from the LDS building (room didn't seem appropriate here, the LDS church is more like an adjacent building than a room).
@@bearistotle2820 The dogma is Outside the Church there is no salvation. So like in the time of Noah everyone outside the Church will perish including Vatican II Catholics
Matt, another great dialogue. I'm Catholic and love watching these. My only complaint is I wish they were longer!
Will said a couple things about what Catholics believe though that I would like to correct or clarify for your audience.
At 6:18, he says that for Lutherans, forgiveness does not hang on the penance aspect of confession, that the forgiveness of sins can be had even without a penance. Catholics believe that too. The Catechism of the Catholic Church in paragraph 1459 says "Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused. Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must "make satisfaction for" or "expiate" his sins. This satisfaction is also called "penance."" So, for us, penance is something that the Church in her pastoral wisdom has attached to the sacrament of reconciliation, but she does not understand penance to be a necessary part of forgiveness.
At 7:30, he describes the illustration from the Baltimore Catechism. Perhaps he has remembered this illustration differently, but that is not what is in the actual book. He is likely referring to the picture on the bottom of this page (ldysinger.stjohnsem.edu/@texts2/1962_sj_balt_cat/195_com-rel_voc.htm). Notice it does not say that the person forgot a sin. Rather, it says he is ashamed of one and thus does not confess it. If one legitimately forgets to confess a sin, we believe God forgives that person on account of his honest repentance. If he subsequently remembers that sin though, he is still forgiven, but is encouraged to mention it in his next confession. If, however, one deliberately omits confessing a sin he knows he ought to confess, then the sacrament does not avail him because in refusing to be sorry for one sin, it shows that he is not truly repentant. So, Will is right in saying that he comes out with 4 sins instead of three, but only if one of those initial three is deliberately not confessed. This understanding of it, then, is not a huge burden at all, as he says. If he were right that forgetting to confess a sin were itself sinful, that would rack my conscience too. But that's contrary to common sense, and not what the Church believes.
At 9:04, Will says, "Jesus says, 'This bread is his body, and this wine is his blood." Not to be too nitpicky, but in Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, and 1 Corinthians 11, we do not read "This bread is my body" etc. We only read "This is my body." If it was substantially bread and wine in addition to the substance of Christ himself, then the Person of the Word would have three natures - one divine, one human, one bread. This would not only be quite strange, but it would have pretty dire consequences where the doctrine of the hypostatic union is concerned. St. Irenaeus witnesses to this in Against Heresies 4:18:5 where he says the bread "is no longer common bread but the Eucharist."
All in all, really appreciate these videos. Keep up the good work brother!
^^^^^
Couldn’t the bread simply be an extension of the physical nature of Christ ie. matter and thus of same substance as Christ’s humanity?
@@goodoleblue I'm not sure exactly what you mean. If you're distinguishing between the physical properties of the bread and what the "stuff" (matter) actually IS, that's basically the distinction between substance and accident, aka the Catholic position..
@@goodoleblue When you say it like that, one can conclude two interpretations:
1. An extension of the physical nature of Christ, as a symbol of Christ humanity.
or
2. An extension of the physical nature of Christ, as the real thing of Christ's nature.
Then you can also expand on the second interpretation. Whether or not the bread itself is the same substance as the Body, or the essence changes but the appearance stay the same. I do pray that Catholics and Lutherans unite once again. That specific differences of the Real Presence is toooooooo detailed, and was not even a primary factor of why there was separation between Catholics and Lutherans in the first place.
In my opinion, the different ideas of how the Real Presence is present in the Eucharist between Catholics and Lutherans is minute compared to other things. The Eucharist is indeed a mystery. We can’t fully understand how it happens, both Lutherans and Catholics (even add in the Orthodox) alike. We do have expressed views as to how it goes about, but we still both agree to the main definition of Real Presence in the Eucharist: that it is really Jesus in the bread and wine, not some symbolic term.
God Bless. I pray that Catholics and Lutherans may be one as Jesus intended His Church to be in the first place.
Now when I think about it. What the Lutherans say is pretty much the same as that of Catholics. Semantics are just in play. Another reason why this is not even an issue that differs us in the first place. Please correct me anyone if I'm wrong though. I'm not well versed in this.
As a Roman Catholic this had me screaming at my screen a few times :D But I was also blown away by just how similar our theology is in so many respects....I honestly never realized just how close Lutheranism is to our faith. Thanks for another great set of videos Matt!
If the doctrines are similar then become a Lutheran LCMS. Follow Christ and not the Popes teachings.
@Joseph Fossa Jesus Christ gave us the Holy Spirit, not the Pope. If Pope was truly the Vicar of Christ, he would be teaching the world about salvation through Christ. The media and other religions admire him for his humanitarianism but I am willing to bet the moment he engages in the teachings of Christ, he would be persecuted and the mainstream media would leave. Pope followers think of the pope when they see him , not Christ.
@@SoldierOfGod778 Orthodox has miracles too shipmate.
@@SoldierOfGod778 the miracles of Catholicism are tears from a statue, the same tricks the pagans had in ancient times.
@@SoldierOfGod778 Does it say in the bible that the church that has miracles is the true church? The Holy Spirit is not found in bricks and mortar. God sees your heart and your actions. Look at the actions of the Catholic church on not protecting the young from pedophiles. Moreover, it was the actions of the Catholic church that caused divisions. Lastly, God communicates with all of us in one form or another.
When I think of the statement, "Blessed are the peacemakers..." I think of you Matt. This series has been outstanding, I've enjoyed it a lot.
Ringing true to his namesake.
Gift of God.
In the 65th translation of the bible, (Luther Revised edition) it says *"Blessed are the chosen for by your faith alone, you have been saved, for the Kingdom of God is yours."*
Blessed are those with pure hearts, for they shall see Him
I’m not a Lutheran and I don’t think that’s likely to change, but I’d love to have that guy as a neighbor.
Chris Kontennutzer For me it’s more an “approach to churching” issue than a theological issue. For example, the Lutheran church my sister & her family go to has I believe an annual sermon schedule. Like, every first Sunday of the year they preach the same sermon. I get (or at least I think I get) their reasons for doing it that way, but I have trouble believing that whoever laid out the sermon schedule for the entire denomination however many years ago had any idea which sermon subject on any given day would be the most helpful for any particular congregation. Stuff like that. I do disagree with some of their theology as well, but I don’t know my bible well enough yet to _confidently_ say that I’m right and they’re wrong.
Chris Kontennutzer Off the top of my head, I’m more Calvinist than Lutherans are (as I understand it, anyway).
Chris Kontennutzer (WRT sermon schedules) Yes, but even setting aside the issue of whether churches should be teaching us to be better husbands etc, can you see how a reasonable person might conclude that, for example, congregations in areas with very high rates of property crime might need more reminders of what the Bible says about stealing than a congregation in other areas? Or if a very prominent “Christian” leader in the community says something heretical, how it might be helpful to put off for a week whatever you were going to preach about and address why that person is wrong? I agree that it’s a good idea for churches to plan out how they’re going to teach their congregation the _entire_ Bible, I’m just not sold on having it done on the denomination level instead of the church level.
@@chriskontennutzer4473 Not praying for the dead and getting to heaven by faith by faith alone?
@@chriskontennutzer4473 A cradle Southern Episcopalian with brother/sister cousins in Penn. who are ELCA pastors and currently I am enrolled in RCIA Catholic conversion class at 65 years old.
Luther wanted to reform the Church. He never wanted a split and he abhorred the idea that a Church would be named after him.
The Catholics excommunicated Luther, and they were the ones that labeled the reformed movement as "Lutheran."
Facts.
@@stephenkammerling9479and rightly so.
Why did he break his own vows and attempt to edit the bible to fit his ideas?
@Thesteadfast please read more instead of blindly spouting nonsense off ignorance.
Man, that was heavy. Especially Will’s remarks about communion. Regardless of one’s thoughts on transubstantiation, you can’t deny that much of what Will said about communion is from the NT. His warnings to not eat and drink in an unworthy manner are from St. Paul himself. I, for one, will give more thought to the Lord’s supper the next time I partake of it.
No. The kid in the Baltimore Catechism doesn't "forget" the sin. He deliberately refuses to mention it. Catholics believe that if you forget a sin, it's covered in your general intent to confess all your sins.
Thank you for clearing that up. He misrepresented this completely.
@@bartee807
I find that a lot of people oppose the Catholic Church on specifics that they don't know the details of. Catholics actually agree with Lutherans on a lot more than is commonly supposed.
@@Thomaskloppmusic well alot of their demands did eventually happen. I was told once of they would drop sola Scriptora and accept apostlic succession you would have Catholics.
Repentance isn't required in Catholicism. It's just recommended. I don't always get a repentance.
Keithen Hamilton Repentance is always required, otherwise confession is pointless. It’s mandatory for a confession to be valid. If you are not truly repentant and sorry for your sins, then your confession is a lie and invalid.
@@boogerandfriends repentance is but like an action to prove it. Like 5 hail Mary's
We’ve been visiting a Lutheran church for the past months (a WELS one) and I’m just blown away by how perfectly they combine doctrine and tradition. Lovely pastors like Will are definitely playing a part in our journey too!
Props to Matt for just casually dropping the Donatist controversies into the conversation. Knowing that you're grounded in church history gives me confidence that you're approaching these conversations with sincerity and sobriety
Wow. This interview actually brought me to tears, when he explained the eucharist. I've been meaning to attend a Lutheran service. (I'm a Presbyterian.) I've visited Lutheran churches in Europe and was surprised at how Catholic they seemed. I'm going to find a Missouri Synod church and go soon. What a great series this is!
Unfortunately you are an idiot if you think his view on the eucharist is correct, for he said it needs to be swallowed FOR salvation (10:45) and that is 100% FALSE. Do you understand me? FALSE. Salvation is based on faith in the cross-work of Christ and not on anything we put in our mouth! WAKE UP OH THOU FOOL.
He doesn’t say it needs to be swallowed for forgiveness. When it is swallowed, certainly forgiveness is given, but that is not a requirement for salvation. A child who dies before his or her first communion is not damned. The Word of God works through the preached Word, as well as through Baptism and the Supper. The preached Word and Baptism are the entry for people into faith. Those are the places faith is given, such that a person can believe in Christ’s work on the cross. Communion is what continually gives faith as a person lives as a Christian. Forgiveness and faith are given in the body and blood so that we do not fall away but rather remain steadfast in the faith we were given in baptism.
@PK1517 Thank you.
I was raised Presbyterian.. Im now lcms.. Definitely come visit.. Youll notice alot of similarity to..
Alsp.. Imma offer a lil prayer for mojo
I love this Lutheran preacher, he has a wonderful attitude and very knowledgeable. Makes me want to explore Lutheranism further.
I hope that the Lord will fulfil your desires. May the Lord bless you....
Hey Matt, I really appreciate how you encourage those you interview to be completely honest/open, and yet still facilitate such a respectful environment on your channel. So often ‘respect’ is associated with softening beliefs, and yet it has to be-must must be-compatible with honesty. This can be difficult, but the success of this series is such an encouraging example!! Thank you!
I love the Pastor's passion. I would attend his church just to hear him preach.
You really can't get away from Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Christ, whether Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, Luther for 1500 + years and even thru reformation at first there was never a thought that it was a symbol. The Eucharist is always the center of service because it is Christ what else could possibly be central a 45 minute sermon or great concert?
Certain traditions, which I will not name, emphasize long sermons(at least 30-45 minutes). They'll hurry through everything else, likely omitting several stanzas from hymns, just to get to the preacher's long message. In most cases what's preached could have been said in at least half the time and kept the attention of the listeners.
The ancients --even the pagans--did not have the concept of “symbol”. It is the product of late medieval philosophy.
What would Jesus think???
He was all about people and love!
Matters of ". . . Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Christ" is irrelevant!
I give organized Christian churches 15 to 20 years since young people are leaving churches in droves!
The "scared Christians" are dying out! Our young are not afraid!
So great, you could do 20 more of this videos and I would still all instantly watch them.
I especially like when Matt goes into greater theological detail and asks some difficult followup questions. It's the challenging questions that always in interviews bring out the best answers.
Do Lutherans believe Mary was the Theotokos, Mater Dei, Mother of God?
Dan M. Lutherans believe she was the mother of Jesus. Blessed, but a human just like any other mother.
@@danm.6970 Yes, we are happy to call her the Mother of God. We are also happy to sing on Good Friday with Bach, "My God is dead, his spirit now he giveth." Jesus is God. No reservations. No Zwinglian allegories.
Luthers Erbe greetings from my Lutheran church LCMS as a Lutheran Orthodoxist. May God be with you.
As I’m new to the Lutheran church this 3-part series has been incredibly helpful to me.
As a lifelong lutheran, this minister is like most lutheran ministers but better. Welcome!
Welcome!
"The more I listen, the more I hunger." This is the Holy Spirit of God working in this man.
To address your question on the Eucharist, consider this writing from Ignatius, a disciple and successor to John, the gospel author:
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).
It's an immovable fact that the earliest of Christians wholeheartedly believed in the Real Presence of the Eucharist. It's one of the reasons, that after 20 years in Protestantism, I'm now a Russian Orthodox.
Who's more likely to be correct----a group of men who *personally* knew the writers of the New Testament----or someone 1500-2000 years on who's merely interpreting the New Testament?
It's very telling when 30,000+ protestant denominations all make the claim that they know more than people who were personally discipled by an Apostle.
In the end that is exactly what moved me to become Catholic. I do wish the separation of the orthodox and Catholics could be fully resolved because I like Pope Benedict’s belief that the church needs to breath with both lungs. We both have things of value the other could benefit from. Speaking as a Catholic the west could use at minimum a little theosis and return to the beauty of the ancient Liturgy.
Ontologically Steve Just curious; How do you reconcile the writings of the Early Eastern Church Fathers regarding the primacy of the bishop of Rome?
@@ontologicallysteve7765 do you speak Russian?
Ontologically Steve fantastic! Christ is risen
In the Catholic Church forgiveness does not "hang upon" penance. The forgiveness is pronounced first. Then penance follows. A person is truly forgiven by God before any penance is done.
@Ray Brower Well, like the pastor says, you have to give the cow back!
@@chriskontennutzer4473 Could a person do something out of justice, just because it's the right thing to do, whether or not he feels joy? Doesn't God want us to do the right thing regardless of how we feel?
@@chriskontennutzer4473 “Canon 959: In the sacrament of penance the faithful who confess their sins to a legitimate minister, are sorry for them, and intend to reform themselves obtain from God through the absolution imparted by the same minister forgiveness for the sins they have committed after baptism and, at the same, time are reconciled with the Church which they have wounded by sinning.” From the Code of Canon Law
Three conditions for forgiveness:
1. Confess your sin
2. Be sorry for your sin
3. Intend to reform (metanoia)
Penance is something you do to "make up" for the crime you've committed and to "pay off" some of the punishment you deserve for doing something bad. It's not something you do to earn forgiveness.
Then what is the need for penance?
Then...why do penance? Jesus told the woman caught in adultery, ".....Go and sin no more." He didn't instruct her to go do penance….
As a born and raised Lutheran, I have really enjoyed this series. I truly believe that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ. The demeanor and care you have both shown is exactly how we should love one another. Thank you!
Matt, thank you so much for interviewing Pastor Weedon regarding confessional Lutheranism. I came to Lutheranism after spending nearly 40 years as a Southern Baptist-including seminary training and years in ministry (I am almost 43years old now). After going through a very painful divorce about 3 years ago, I began attending an LCMS church in my home town, not because I planned to become Lutheran, but because I wanted to attend a gospel believing church where nobody knew me or my painful situation. What I found was the comfort of the gospel like I had never experienced it before. The steady preaching of Law and Gospel, the robust assurance of forgiveness through the means of grace, and the Christ-saturated liturgy was exactly what my soul needed. Though it took time to work through the theological differences, God used my faithful pastor, some good books, and (most importantly) the ongoing experience of the gospel through the life and worship of the church to bring me into the membership of the Lutheran church. And I am so thankful he did! Blessings to you in Christ!
jbheavenlyfootman I’m happy for you. I’m glad you found the salve your soul needed. I experienced the same in the Catholic Church through the preached word and the Eucharist. Actually, I got immersed in the Word of God at that time and it was just what I needed. God is good!
May God keep on blessing you and all of us. He reveals Himself how and when He can.
Vanessa Johnson, thank you!
@@vanessajohnson1944 Amen Sister!
Welcome! I’m glad you found God’s love at the time you really needed it, and I’m happy that it was in our Church. Welcome!
BIG YES on his discussion of the Eucharist! Many of the reformers would be turning in their graves if they knew how dimly western protestants treat and view this mystery!
FreshDonuts PREACH. Even in The Episcopal Church we’ve dimmed our view of this most wondrous sacrament to a terrible degree!
YES!!!
In Lutheran LCMS. The presence of Christ is in the supper.
@@boomerthomas4309 That's partly why I switched from TEC to ELCA. The classical Reformed spiritual Real Presence of the Eucharist just didn't seem right, and those that argued for a corporeal Real Presence seemed to be in complete opposition to Anglicanism's early theology. Then you have those pushing for memorialism and transubstantiation, the sheer unpredictability and lack of definition of Anglican theology was chaotic
@@DeFyYing You'll eventually find that ELCA is a political church, not a Christian church. LCMS theology is based on scripture and not politics. Welcome to come on over! Many ELCA families have joined our church in the last few years. God bless you.
Remember, Martin Luther's mission was to reform the Roman Catholic Church, and not to split it.
I appreciate your insight!
Only a power-driven Church (like the Catholic Church) would ignore the words of one of its priests: forcing that priest to leave the Church!
And I appreciate your insight. Yes, only a divinely authoritative Church lead by the POWER of the Holy Spirit (e.g. the Catholic Church) would ignore the words of one of it's human priests and force that human priest to make a decision to: (i) disavow his hereies, come into commuion and then reform the Church from within as was needed; or (ii) walk away.
It was the RCC which ex-communicated Martin Luther and the rest is history....
@@craiganderson8569
Martin Luther was the first person in history who was willing to take on a whole church!
The fact that today there are more Protestants in the world than Catholics shows he was not "crazy!!!"
Your reply shows that braindead Catholics are not exactly intellectual!
Young people won't enter a church after they leave the family home.
I give Christianity ten years!
@@kylewdufour Ah yes, heresies like saying that it is wrong to withhold The Blood of Christ in the cup from the layman? It's Rome that had the heresies, not Luther. Sadly to this day Rome continues to withhold The Cup and only allow Communion in one kind (Only the Bread) in many of the Catholic services.
“The Word of GOD is the joy of Christians.” Wow!
As a Catholic I thoroughly enjoyed these three videos and look forward to full communion with the Missouri Synod and all Christians who believe in the Word of God
The LCMS will most likely never be in full communion with Catholics. We are too far apart in some key areas. One being Papal authority.
@@run4cmt if that were true, then many Eastern Catholics would also not be in communion. The pope of Rome is the pope of the Roman church, and an Eastern Catholic bishop can never be pope. We are in communion with the Roman church laterally. Communion with the LCMS doesn’t seem so far off from Roman Catholicism at all.
@@run4cmtwe will one day be in common together. One day we will sit at the Lamb’s high feast communing together as one body redeemed and brought into eternal life through the blood of the Lamb.
I’m a lcms member. Good to hear the true word of God I’ve always believed we were right with the gospel
Pastor Weedon is excellent here! That said, speaking as a Lutheran, there’s one piece of Scripture I wish more Lutherans would bring up when discussing the Supper with our Reformed and Baptist brothers and sisters. Paul says this in 1 Corinthians 10:16: “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” I can see how many people aren’t persuaded, just looking at the accounts of the Last Supper, that Jesus isn’t using a metaphor. But I think it’s very hard to match what Paul says to the idea that the Eucharist is *only* a memorial meal.
You're 100% WRONG that Lutherans consider their opponents their brothers and sisters. Maybe today they do, but that's not being consistent with M.L. In his debate, with you know who, Luther himself told them, "we cannot consider you brothers". I have the quote, but you won't request it or care to know anything about it because humans can't stand to be corrected once their mind is made up, right? I thought so.
Darned Lutherans.. Always going to the word.. Lol
@@mojo7495 Historical evangelicals (so-called Lutherans) do not consider Dr. Luther to be a saint. He is not ever called St. Martin or St. Luther. He wasn't right about everything, and he wasn't right in everything he said and did.
Kyle West I had that same thought, that there were some easy go-to passages like the one you cited that clearly prove the truth of the real presence and exclude the possibility that Jesus was speaking metaphorically in the words of institution. I don’t at all disagree with Pr. Weedon’s given proof - and I in no way want to criticize the wonderful, wonderful witness he has given in this series of interviews; I mean, he took this opportunity and totally knocked it out of the park - but it seems that, especially for the uninitiated, 1 Cor 10 is a clear and easy way to show what Jesus’ words meant. Again, I don’t want to second guess Weedon’s approach, which is to try to make the case that Jesus words were clear from the time he said them - and it seems that this was Luther’s approach, as well as Chemnitz’s and writers like Sasse’s approach, to start with Jesus on words and then move on chronologically from there to Paul - but when you’re talking to someone who believes that the whole Bible is God’s word, again it seems that 1 Cor 10 would really make someone who believes in representation to rethink their position.
Why would a Reformed Christian take issue with that passage? I understand why a Zwinglist would take issue, but Calvin affirmed a real presence in the supper and rejected the mere memorialist view. Maybe first we should answer, why do Lutherans refuse to fairly represent the Reformed view and instead uncharitably lump us in with Zwingli and the baptists?
"Man ate of the living tree and death came... eat of the dying tree and life comes." LOVE that parallel pointed out! Great conversation about some challenging topics. Thank you! :)
I came from a baptist/non-denominational background, and although I loved my faith, there was always a small absence of spirit that I felt inside. Then, I started going to a lutheran church and I really felt renewed in my faith and I loved taking part in a more conservative liturgy, and frankly it felt more real to me and I felt even more closer to god. May god bless and keep you all! 🙏🏼
because church isn't just about preaching/teaching, it's about actually worshipping God. That's what was missing from your low church / baptist/ evangelical roots. They just don't get it. There's Catholic churches that really take it to the top with traditional Latin Mass, a true communal sacrifice for the Lord. I like and appreciate all of Christianity. I am a bit wary of predestination/Calvinism. Otherwise no real qualms with Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists that aren't outright apostates.
Be careful; you might end up becoming a Lutheran if you look too carefully ;)
I'm a former evangelical who converted myself and my family to Lutheranism, and I've never been more certain of the change. Lutheranism takes me to Christ for assurance, whereas in evangelicalism (and sadly even in some of the Calvinism I was in) I was always redirected toward myself and my experiences, works, emotions, etc., for assurance.
From Luther's Commentary on Galatians -- "During struggles of conscience, you must learn to let go of yourselves. You must forget about the Law and good works. They only drive you to look at yourselves. Instead, you must turn your eyes directly toward Christ, the one nailed to the cross You must fix your gaze upon Him."
@@Vindicated333 More like an infinity-course meal prepared and served by God Himself. The eternal dessert is coming! :)
Interesting... I’ve had the opposite experience at evangelical churches. Which denomination(s), if you don’t mind my asking?
Evangelical is too general. To most folks Joel Osteen, John MacArthur, and Ravi Zacharias are all evangelica. These three have real differences.
Ify Nsoha Fair point.
It seems it would be easy to explain to middle schoolers (which I tried to do for many years as middle school English teacher) the use and understanding of figurative language. I'm not sure I always did a good job, and it would seem when we look at the Words of Institution, we struggle with the format of figurative language. Yes, Jesus used the word "is," so we want to say, "Aha! metaphor!" But His words do not have the metaphorical form. A metaphor helps us understand an unknown by comparing it to a know using the word "is." The Lord is my shepherd. We know what a shepherd is (or the people for whom the Psalm was first written did), so we can then take the nature of a shepherd and understand something about God from it. The Lord is a fortress. God is not a castle, but I can take something about my knowledge of fortresses and from that understand something about God. The words Jesus spoke at the Last Supper do not have this form. This bread is My body. This cup is My blood. The unknown in both are the body and the blood. The known are the bread and the cup. I don't take my knowledge of a body to help me understand the nature of the bread. I don't take my knowledge about blood to help me understand the nature of wine. Instead, the verb "is" here is predicative. Both body and blood are predicate nouns. Or we call them nominatives. They define the bread and the cup. And this to me is the beauty of the doctrine of the Real presence. The elements are still bread and cup, but Christ is truly (really) present in, with, and under the elements not because the elements change but because Jesus said He is. The bread is His body. The cup is His blood of the covenant given for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Amen.
It’s just like I have been changed by reason of receiving Christ as Lord and Savior. However, my body has not change; my chemical makeup has not change. In like kind, the cup and bread are no longer the same.
I mean even just repeating what Christ said and handing out the supper offends the people who make out the supper to be something other then what Christ said it was. in 1 john 5 I believe he says there are three things that tesify the water/blood/ and spirit and when you read the gospel of john especially from the wedding of cana and through chapter 3 looking for a connection to those things it's really astounding especially considering that most of the gospel of john was written to have meaning of eachother. You'll see keywords and things like purification where Christ turned water to wine in jars of purification and Christ takes out the tax collectors from the church and says that we must be reborn and then uses the word purification when talking about baptism and water and purification in the cross. You will see other keywords like marriage with cana and later when it's talking about baptism at the end of chapter 3
There's always been disagrement about what Christ meant later in the gospel of john were christ said “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." That I don't think after reading chapters 2 and 3 and what is said in 1 john that there is any other way to interpret john 6 talking about anything other then the Lord's supper and what Christ said was clearly offensive to many of the people following him who even seemed to believe many of the other things Christ said and this offense at Christ's words I don't think would make any sense unless he is actually saying we must really eat and drink his body and blood.
I think there is something we have been missing in the gospel of John that is simple but we seem to miss as christians simple because we want salvation to be in forms outside of simple word and sacrament. Or even if we believe it we often want to add something to it. But John's gospel and his letter in 1 John have made a huge impact on me even though I'm bad at explaining it.
I literally have been looking for the grammatical language here...thank you...me and my wife are literally at odds over what is is...thank you Zwingli...thank you Clinton...thankyou post modernism
Lutheran Orthodox here love the video, it explains everything about my faith as a Lutheran growing up in the church. Glory be to God, Alleuia!
Lutheran Orthodox Church? I'm in the LOC.
These three videos have been illuminating. I almost want to convert to Lutheranism now. As I study worship more and more, I find myself lining up with them theologically.
I'm kind of in the same boat. Been attending an LCMS church and Bible study, praying and studying a lot on my own. While I don't agree on every single point, it so far has seemed to me that they are as close as it gets to perfect interpretation.
@@SeriousRetail What's stopping me right now honestly is just the fact that I don't feel I can tie myself down to one denomination just yet. Not only am I being pulled in all sorts of directions (I even thought about being Catholic again), but as a church musician, I feel it's not practical to claim one denomination just yet, as I may be called to play an Episcopal service week after I serve at an Assemblies of God church and etc.
@@ConnorTerrell That is a unique position for sure. I'd just encourage you to wrestle with the scriptures, decide what you believe based on the scriptures without any denominational lens, then see which denomination is most true to those beliefs. Not easy, but doable. God bless you on your search
Then why have penance if you are forgiven before penance?
Connor Terrell I did a few years ago. Was a former Baptist and Lutheranism spoke to me
I'm a Baptist, but I listen to Pastor Weedon on the radio at least once a month. Very cool to see him on your show. Keep up the good work!
Been an LCMS Lutheran my whole life. Thanks for this. I pray it helps people understand what Lutherans believe.
The way Will explains it has helped SO MUCH more. I struggled for years with the whole “ must believe first” thing. I like how Lutheran’s believe that you don’t come in with instant faith. It needs to grow. Plus the concept that WE didn’t choose. God chose US to come and be a believer and follower.
I am catholic, but i really love his explanation about the Holy eucharist.
All the metaphors he took from the bible.
An an LCMS Lutheran in the process of converting to Catholicism, I can safely say that Weedon's one of the best of us, and is a resource for the church at large.
May God bless him, his resourcefulness, his enthusiasm and the love for the Holy Eucharist.
😆😊😊 cool down .. Everyone has a right to choose their own religion.
And calling catholic the worst.. Wow.
I'm catholic and I 100% agree with you. I am pretty well versed in this stuff (compared to average) and I'd never heard that juxtaposition with the trees and the eating. Cool idea.
Automatic “like” when he talked about not trifling with grace. Great job! Awesome content.
Kelly Ramos so the Reverend said Lutherans don’t believe in penance like Roman Catholics because they put more emphasis on the act of penance instead of the crime itself but he says Lutherans can take communion without doing penance. That is why Roman Catholics do penance, because if you are just taking communion without repenting you cheapen the experience for yourself.
@@silver_desperado Not exactly, Christian. Penance is not repentance, penitence or the sacrament of Confession and Absolution. The problem with the RC view, according to Lutherans, is the satisfactions levied on the penitent. Lutherans' biblical focus is on the Absolution - the freedom of the Gospel declaration of forgiveness for Christ's sake. Lutherans would/should never say to the penitent, "Your sins are forgiven, but now go and..." That would be taking away with the left hand what had been given with the right.
powerfade11 it seems like there is a lack of accountability for ones action with the Lutheran view 🤷🏽♂️
@@silver_desperado We are accountable and must obey and keep the Commandments of God, but we try to rightly divide Law and Gospel. One condemned in their sins, broken and contrite, believing in Christ for forgiveness needs to hear the Gospel, not more Law. The Law of God was doing it's work in crushing the person in their sins which led to confession and then absolution. The fruits worthy of repentance naturally follow. They are taught and lived, but it's not the right moment when a person is absolved.
@@silver_desperado Many Catholics if not most Catholics do not do penance before Mass. Who goes to confession any more? It's sad that Lutherans don't want to take the time of day to go to private confession. But the start of Eucharist in Lutheran churches includes general confession; the pastor forgives/ blesses everyone [even little kids who do not know what is going ].
I have been on a CRAZY religious journey lately... There was no doubt Jesus is indeed the Christ, however I've been tormenting myself trying to find out what expression of Christianity was the most true, accurate representation of the Church that Christ started. One day I thought I was leaning Eastern Orthodox, one day I thought I was leaning Roman Catholic. This video alone, has given me peace. Will has explained Lutheranism so beautifully, and it truly appears to be the true church of Christ. I've reached out to my local LCMS church to sit with me and answer some question so that I can truly begin to embrace the Lutheran Church. I still adore my non denominational brethren, but I can't help but feel returning to tradition will only help strengthen my relationship with God. Thank you so much for this video Matt, and may God truly bless anyone reading this. God is good!
You may want to watch a few videos by Michael Cumbie, John Bergsma or Douglas Beaumont. These ex protestant pastors talk about their spiritual journey & where they finally ended up. Peace
Speaking with a Lutheran Pastor is a very good way to learn more and get your questions answered. If you want to do some of your own research, I would suggest The Augsburg Confession. It is not an easy read, but it uses the Bible and the very early Church Fathers to defend the positions taken by the Lutherans at the time of Martin Luther. It is part of a larger volume known as the Book of Concord. It has changed the hearts of many people.
Thank you for doing this tour and sit down with Pr Weedon. @WilliamWeedon
Also thank you for joining the Crucial Conversation podcast @CruxProductions and the KFUO Coffee Hour @KFUOradio
Your questions were very good and respectful and I appreciated the degree to which you listened and considered the responses.
I look forward to checking out your tours and sit downs with other traditions.
God's blessings!
Right on Cafe!
I never used the Baltimore Catechism, but I was curious about the statements made here and looked up the section on confession. Not surprised, but it is terribly misrepresented by the priest in the video.
From the BC:
"We are bound to confess all our mortal sins, but it is well also to confess our venial sins."
"If without our fault we forget to confess a mortal sin, our Confession is worthy, and the sin is forgiven; but it must be told in Confession if it again comes to our mind."
"He who has willfully concealed a mortal sin in Confession must not only confess it, but must also repeat all the sins he has committed since his last worthy Confession."
The condemnation is clearly only for willingly concealing a serious sin. This is considered to invalidate the sacrament because it is being approached with deception, not repentance. Remember that only MORTAL sins are required to be confessed (those whose nature actually breaks our relationship with God). And forgetting a sin but keeping an attitude of repentance results in the sin being FORGIVEN by default, not retained. The sacrament is invalidated only if the one confessing PURPOSEFULLY conceals a mortal sin - which makes sense because he is actually refusing reconciliation to God.
I would very much like to know if this priest disagrees with the actual text.
No ill will intended, but please don't just take this man's word about the Catholic Church without researching it.
Yes. He is a nice man in the video, but _he seriously misrepresented tha Catechism_ as saying "if youforget a sin you now have an extra sin"......just not true! ......demonstrably not true! thank you.
But the pastor's characterisation of Luther's endless agonising over guilt depends upon this misunderstanding being maintained. In fact Luther was probably psychologically disturbed by his violent father.
Hey, thanks for the correction. I haven’t looked at it in years and my memory obviously simplified it and thereby distorted. The teaching at the time of the Reformation, though, might have been different (I am assuming it was) because this became a key point that the Lutherans objected to and wrote in their Confessions.
@@willcweedon Hey! Nice to see your response! I'm loving the interview, for the record and thank you for doing this. I'll try to research this issue further. As a Catholic, I continue to pray for reconciliation between our faiths and I'm confident it will come in time. Please pray for us as well!
@@wilts43 Interesting comment about Luther being abused by his father.
@@willcweedon Just for what was officially taught by the Church in the years surrounding the Reformation:
From the 8th Session of the Council of Florence (1439, Bull of Union with the Armenians):
"The fourth sacrament is penance. Its matter is the acts of the penitent, which are threefold. The first is contrition of heart, which includes sorrow for sin committed, with the resolve not to sin again. The second is oral confession, which implies integral confession to the priest of *all sins that are remembered.* The third is satisfaction for sins in accordance with the judgment of the priest which is ordinarily done by prayer, fasting and almsgiving. The form of this sacrament are the words of absolution which the priest pronounces when he says: I absolve you. The minister of this sacrament is a priest with authority to absolve, which is either ordinary or by commission of a superior."
From the Fourteenth Session of the Council of Trent (1551): "Wherefore, while the faithful of Christ are careful to confess all the sins *which occur to their memory* , they without doubt lay them all bare before the mercy of God to be pardoned: whereas *they who act otherwise, and knowingly keep back certain sins* , such set nothing before the divine bounty to be forgiven through the priest: for if the sick be ashamed to show his wound to the physician, his medical art cures not that which it knows not of." (Council of Trent, Session 14, Chapter 5)
From the Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566):
"Sins Concealed:
So important is it that confession be entire that if the penitent confesses only some of his sins and *wilfully neglects* to accuse himself of others which should be confessed, he not only does not profit by his confession, but involves himself in new guilt. Such an enumeration of sins cannot be called sacramental confession; on the contrary, the penitent must repeat his confession, not omitting to accuse himself of having, under the semblance of confession, profaned the sanctity of the Sacrament.
Sins Forgotten:
But should the confession seem defective, either because *the penitent forgot some grievous sins, or because, although intent on confessing all his sins, he did not examine the recesses of his conscience with sufficient accuracy* , he is not bound to repeat his confession. It will be sufficient, when he recollects the sins which he had forgotten, to confess them to a priest on a future occasion.
It should be noted, however, that we are not to examine our consciences with careless indifference, or to be so negligent in recalling our sins as to seem as if unwilling to remember them. Should this have been the case, the confession must by all means be made over again." (Roman Catechism, The Sacraments: Penance)
Obviously, as with the practices regarding indulgences, there were probably abuses/misunderstandings of the Sacrament by local priests/faithful (part of why one of the biggest reforms from Trent was the formation of seminaries), but on the level of the official teaching of the Church, it was always understood that Confession of all your sins only meant the ones you remember, and that there was no adding guilt to a forgotten sin (just intentional withholding).
I stumbled across your channel this week and have watched nearly a dozen of your videos already, however this three part series on the LMCS was exceedingly fascinating. Pastor Will truly has a heart for the Lord and I can tell you do too. Thank you for this channel and God's blessings on your ministry.
Hello, I’ve been more Lutheran for the last two years (“NEWtheran”) and Pr. Weedon has DEFINITELY helped me understand my position I’ve been falling more into theologically. In the grander scheme of the church and coming more from a Baptist/Non-denominational background, I’m becoming more and more proud to embrace the Lutheran tradition as my own
Me too...former Merican Evanjelly
Seth - I am a (raised) *Lutheran* currently in a contemporary Church. And while I joke with my close Lutheran friends that I am a Lutheran plant within a C3 Church - I appreciate and love both movements - we are all one body. I do love the Gospel distilled into Lutheran theological understanding and writings. Especially the deep understanding of Grace and the bondage of the will. Love the fact that Pastors are thoroughly trained in exegesis and hermeneutics. Also still the love and appreciation of good red wine and beer - all in thanksgiving and moderation!.
Me too! I attend an LCMC church (Lutheran Congregations in Ministry for Christ) and one of the most precious, meaningful things for me from the very first was going up, with the congregation, each Sunday, to receive the body and blood of Jesus. I felt so nourished in the the Lord. Coming from non-denominational and charismatic churches I appreciate the fullness, beauty and well rounded order of our worship services in focus on Jesus, His Word, the Gospel, prayer for the saints and communing around the LORD'S table, then being sent out with a blessing and the charge to 'go be the church'.
Leslie Brown. You described so beautifully the same feelings I’ve had at the Lord’s Supper as a lifetime Lutheran. Thank you.
Lutheran Orthodox here welcome all to the House of the Lord🙏
From a Catholic perspective, I'll say this... It is difficult to say that Luthor was preserving the traditional Church when he specifically broke the chain of authority established by Christ through this Apostles. No matter what corruptions were present in the Church (and I'm not saying there were none), if you delegitimize the authority itself, you have cut down the tree which props up all Christianity. Without that connection, we are left to our own devices and biases to define our faith, which has historically resulted in drastically divergent beliefs.
Catholics are no strangers to corruption and even heresy - it has peppered our entire history because God's mission has been entrusted to sinful men. God - not being a great fool - has preserved His Truth despite our fallen nature. I cannot believe that the Apostles corrupted Jesus' message as they were the ones personally ordained and charged with spreading it (Jesus is not a failure), and if the message was corruptible just beyond their generation, we cannot trust any version of Christianity, no matter how old. The authoritative connection is the only model that makes sense if Jesus was serious about spreading Truth.
I'm saying this with all the charity I can muster and no animosity intended. In all the studying I've done and all the questions I've had, I've never been convinced by a Church held together by personal interpretation.
John Michel I’m not Catholic and may disagree with some of what you said (I’ll think it over), but this was a helpful contribution to my understanding of the Catholic church. Thank you!
But had there not been several reformers before Luther, and several anti popes as well. And was it not the catholic church (Leo X) that exkommunicated luther? Not the other way around.
Luther was catholic himself.
I see it being repeated now when kiril is excommunicating the greek orthodox church and while doing so accusing the ones being excommunicated for dividing the church. I think it was the pope Leo X dividing the church just as i think it’s Kiril dividing the orthodox church right now.
Why are you saying that Luther was the one dividing the church? He just wanted reformation, not dividing.
philen alexandersson Other reformers sure, but they didn’t start their own church with its own liturgy and structure and beliefs. They changed it from the inside out.
I'm a Lutheran. I don't believe Luther's initial objective was to divide the Church. He was attempting to discuss issues and practices with intention of reforming those that were in error. The Church excommunicated Luther and refused an honest discussion of the issues and did not want to reform (until later).
@@brendanray3186 Joe Brinson wrote a post saying what i tried to say but he did it better. Sorry for bad english.
I was baptized and confirmed Presbyterian, and married Roman Catholic. But the very first service I went to in an LCMS church brought me such joy! It seemed complex that first morning, but a lady in the same pew, pulled me over & walked me through that liturgical service. I was home.
Your buildup for this video concerned me as a Roman Catholic. But watching it it reassures me that Lutherans are what I understood, that is an inspired faith but differing from the Roman church. Bless you all. I wish you well.
Im just so annoyed when Catholics refer to Roman Catholic. The only Roman Catholics live in the diocese of Rome.
There is a precision in language that is needed to advance a discussion. Whether you agree or disagree for the purposes of discussion it is necessary to be precise where you are moving from. An example would be my senior thesis of A Social History of US soldiers in the China Burma India Theater during World War 2. It allows everyone to understand what the person is starting from: i.e. Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Catholic or Charismatic Catholic. I mean no disrespect to any of the above but to know what we're talking about some precision is needed.
Lutheran was also a slight from the catholic church toward luther and his followers , with rome claiming luther was a. Heretic.. Didn't know about roman Catholic was also a slight.. God bless
@@alhilford2345 - "The primary and most important duty of pastors is to guard everything pertaining to the integral and inviolate maintenance of the Catholic faith, the faith which The Holy ROMAN Church professes and teaches, without which it is impossible to please God." - Pope Pius X, Editae Saepe (#21) May 26, 1910
“Ignatius, for his part, while remaining Bishop of Antioch, was also heading for the martyrdom that he was to suffer in Rome. In his Letter to the Romans, he refers to the Church of Rome as 'She who presides in love,' a deeply meaningful phrase. ... In truth, presiding in faith is inseparably linked to presiding in love. 107 A.D.
Thanks for this informative interview. As a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, I found much of what this pastor says that resonates with me.
This man is bringing me to tears.
Praise Almighty God!
I am not Lutheran but man do I like the fact that they preach the gospel
Good job here Matt. There are many capable, well spoken Missouri Lutheran pastors that would have done a really good job with this. But, in this instance Pastor Weedon was the perfect man for you to talk with.
Just beginning in my journey of faith. Was an atheist, turned satanist (not luciferian) for years. Over a while the Lord revealed himself to me, in his way. I know Christianity is the truth, but these videos are helping me a ton to figure out which denomination is the one for me.
Jesus is who He says He is! Glad you found your way home. The denomination won't matter much, just keep the faith, trust your soul to Jesus. God bless you for answering the calling of your conscience.
I grew up Lutheran. I didn't know most of that stuff. Thank you for giving me a perspective I didn't know I was missing.
Find a confessional Lutheran church and you'll be right at home ... ;)
I'm going to have to listen to this series multiple times to understand the denomination I grew up in! So much information there! Thank you Matt & Pastor Weedon
Pastor Will Weadon is worth the listen, no matter what denomination or belief..
I'm with Matt on this 100%, I don't agree with a lot of what Pastor Weedon is saying but I recognize his commitment and his perspective and absolutely respect it.
parallaxgames I agree. I particularly disagree with his explanation about the development of doctrine. The doctrine of the Trinity took time to articulate. The apostles would not have had the same understanding as Christians in the 4th or 5th centuries.
@@CIST3 Why? The 12 had Jesus saying that He is God: " The Father and I are one " "before the world began I AM " clearly seperating Himself from the Father and monotheism. That is the Trinity.
@@markhorton3994 Hi Mark, Because to this day the East and West still disagree on who sent the Holy Spirit. Was it the Father or was it the Son or was it both?
@@CIST3 It took time to articulate in the specific form of the Nicaen creed, because that was an articulation specifically developed to counter all of the various controversies and heresies that rose up surrounding it. The apostles probably wouldn't have given so much thought to some of the logically necessary points that manifested from the defense of biblical trinitarianism, but the apostles and many other contemporaries definitely fit into the category of nicaen trinitarian.
@@CIST3 filioque... How many gospels record Jesus telling his disciples after His resurrection to remain in Jerusalem until He sends His Spirit? How much more proof do the Orthodox need for this? (not that I am saying you are Orthodox... but it is plain as day in Scripture, no need for theological hurdles to figure it out).
I love that you just let the conversation sit at the end without further commentary this time. Felt right for this one.
Is there anyway you could do more videos with Pastor Will? I could watch these for hours
Re: participating in the Lord's Supper - 1 Corinthians 10:16. The Apostle Paul affirms exactly what the pastor says here about what Christ gives us. Luther follows the early church's teaching here.
It is still hard to convince my baptist/mennonite raised wife...of this. Why is "is" so hard for people to get? Sorry...sarcasm is my love language...which is probably the real problem. Matt was awesome...so was Will
It's the same problem, William, that we see in John chapter 6. I spent much of my Christian life accepting memorialism in respect to the supper until I read up on Marburg which lead me to enquire into the Christology and church fathers Luther was referencing. When I read the likes of Justin on this I realized that Zwingli and later Calvin had got it so wrong. Paul in 1 Corinthians 10 concludes what Jesus is saying in the supper; the place where creation and Christ are currently joined in anticipation of what's coming.
he is right about the Eucharist, its a mystery, the orthodox church has held this same belief since the beginning
The Eucharist is definitely held as a mystery in the Catholic Church as well. Just because we believe it is the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ doesn't mean we pretend to understand how this miracle occurs.
He sort of misunderstands the reformed view as well. We believe that its the body and blood but that we take it by faith not necessarily by mouth.
jonathan ramont in one of Matt’s other videos, he talked to a reformed pastor in Colorado, and I believe he said that it was totally symbolic and that the bread and grape juice were not sacred..I could be wrong that is my recollection
But I mean, the pastor also said that there was no over arching church body or leadership..so each congregation is different i guess, and to know the views, you would have to take it on a case by case basis
@@jacobc6556 The Roman Catholics do try to explain away the mystery though, with the dogma of transubstantiation.
If someone says hey you, dummy..why do you think this..I would rather be convicted of taking Jesus and his words over seriously(if thats possible) than not taking him seriously enough...
What do you brothers think?
I can't even stretch enough how much I enjoyed this very respectful, interesting and entertaining conversation between you two. Thank you so much.
Keep reading that Book of Concord there on your desk, it changed my life because I tried to fight it and it won because of the Scriptures. Thank so much for these videos with Pastor Will. God's peace be with you
@@chriskontennutzer4473 yes I catch a lot of flack , people think I'm Calvinist instead of Lutheran
I read the Book of Concord when I was in high school 30 years ago and I still can’t get away from how striking it was full of truth.
I have to agree. I grew up in the Lutheran church, but I never truly understood Lutheran Theology until I got a copy of the Book of Concord and started reading it. Then I read through the entire book, testing everything against the Scriptures, and I soon realized that this IS, truly, the faith of the Scriptures. The Scriptures were opened up in a way that I couldn't have imagined. This brilliant confession of faith is like a spotlight shining on the Scriptures.
I also began to read some of the Apostolic, Ante-nicene, and Nicene Fathers, and I was amazed to see that they all basically taught the same catholic faith. So, along with the others, I would urge you to continue reading that Book of Concord with the Scriptures in hand. It is a confession of Christ-centered, cross-focused Christianity.
That was super beautiful. Really amazing stuff. What stuck with me the most was when Will said to the effect, how can we continue in sin, for at some point we don't even know who we are anymore. That was by far the most powerful message he brought as an anthem of Christians in any Christian church.
I'm so glad to be back in the Lutheran Church after being away for a quarter of a century......
It was a joy to hear these two men of God have an uncompromising and yet completely edifying conversation about faith.
No doubt...this was literally iron sharpening iron...thank you both my brothers in Christ
Regardless of which denomination y’all are, Praise be to the Lord Jesus Christ!
The King of kings the Lord of lords, our hope and salvation, seated at the right hand of God calling us to be one as He is one with the Father.
I'm catholic, amen to that my brother in christ❤
@@violetacortez9376 Catholicism is not a denomination. Denominations are denominated from it.
I love his explanation of the communion. The Bible doesn't say it is a symbol. Neither did Jesus say this bread becomes my body he said it is my body. He didn't say this wine becomes my blood but it is my blood. This explanation that he gives is the most biblical I've ever heard.
Like Jesus was not fully man who then transformed from fully man to fully God with only flesh and blood remaining as "accidents".
More so, "mystical union" in ways we do not understand yet simply accept.
Alright this is awesome, thanks for sharing !! You seem to have a genuine gift for the ministry of bringing these communities and individuals together, to have real conversations. As a life-long RC, I didn’t know the Lutheran tradition saw itself as being the actual, western “Catholic” Church. (This makes sense, since Luther was a Catholic priest before the Reformation).
It seems both the RC church and Lutherans believe the other church turned a corner and went another route, in terms of doctrine, theology, teachings, etc. Very interesting indeed.
Also you said something very important: “I didn’t like or agree with everything he said, but I liked him.” Again thanks for sharing this.
The ecumenical dialogue on this channel is inspiring. Thank you for posting these conversations online.
I have an enormous problem with closed communion. Even as a Catholic, and even though I accept my church's teaching on transubstantiation, I think I'd agree with you on this point. I look at it this way: Jesus didn't put any conditions on who could eat at the Last Supper. Even Judas was there. And if the Eucharist is indeed supposed to be spiritual medicine, then why would you deny it to someone who may need or benefit from it? It's not supposed to be a reward for jumping through the right theological hoops. it bothers me when the churches cite 1 Corinthians to fence off communion. Paul was talking about abuses of the communal meal at one church, not laying down law for the ages.
Moreover, just after Jesus calls himself the Bread of Life, he adds that he will never turn away anyone who comes to him. That, to me, is a crystal clear call to an open communion table.
But I do agree with the pastor that Jesus wasn't speaking metaphorically. Look at John 6, when Jesus insists that his flesh is real food and his blood real drink, and that unless you eat and drink of him, you will have no life in you. His own disciples said it was a hard teaching, and many of his followers left him. If he were speaking figuratively, surely he would have told those who were leaving to come back, that he didn't mean it literally. But he didn't. So I think there's something there that he's forcing us to take seriously, whether we like it or not.
Bottom line for me is this: Jesus came to save not the righteous but sinners. How can he save the sinners if only the righteous are allowed at the table?
We all have some aspects of faith that trouble us. That is why we have authority. Satan ( may God rebuke him) was troubled with some aspects of faith also.
mankind died by eating, mankind lived by eating
why, lutheran sounds more catholic than reformed.
Because Lutherans aren’t Calvinists they are early Protestants they came before the lawyer John Calvin created reformed theology
@@atanasiogreene8493 they almost dont sound protestant at all if not for the sola's
We are actually like both and like neither. Lutherans might agree with RC on regenerational baptism and forgiveness in Holy Communion. We do not believe the elements change in substance and we do not believe Christ is sacrificed again in every "Mass." Lutherans have a fundamentally different understanding about grace re: Roman Catholic. My understanding is that in RC theology grace is a power that is given in baptism and the Eucharist which we then use to do the merits needed to have our daily sins forgiven. Technically, in RC theology only original sin is forgiven in baptism. The rest of sin must be atoned for through penance. Lutherans believe grace is in God's nature by which He fully and completely forgives all our sins without any merit or worthiness in us. We have a similar understanding of grace as do the Reformed particularly in that we are divine monergists (unlike the Arminian camp that holds to varying degrees of synergism). We would disagree with 5 point Calvinist (Reformed) on limited atonement (double predestination), irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints. We believe Christ's atonement is for everyone. We believe grace can be and is resisted. We believe is it possible for the believer to walk away from faith.
@@thethirdjegs But that's a big "if not for." It's the foundational difference. And the reason why Lutherans believe they are the true Catholic church. The RCC - according to Luther - had deviated from the true faith of the solas. When they refused to return, he went forward (or, more accurately, backward) to the true faith without them. (Btw, I'm not Lutheran. Just explaining the logic.)
Greco Cabanero well Luther created the solas so that’s why you have them.
I’ve really enjoyed all of these talks and learning about the Lutheran church and its belief systems. In fact I am a 1 year follower of Christ and going to a non denominational who hungers for more gospel, more Old Testament and more new. The more I hear and understand the more I want to know. The more I know the more I understand my sinful nature and pray for more Holy Spirit to help me be what God intended me to be. I truly call this state that all of this had produced freedom! God is Holy, Holy, Holy!
God bless on your new journey brother! I was non denominational for a long time before moving to LCMS Lutheran. I'm only a layman, but if you have questions or want to talk, shoot me a PM.
Zeke Bartlett thank you for reaching out and offering your knowledge and if ever I have need I now have a brother in you. Bless you 🙏🏻
I replay this video at least once a year. So much to get out of it and it keeps on giving.
This was my favorite series of these so far. I look at Pastor Will and Matt and I see two brothers living after the honest convictions of their own consciences. To paraphrase Agrippa, “In a short time you will persuaded me to become a Lutheran.” I see the beauty of their tradition even though I cannot read the Word the same way as him. Thank you so much for doing these. -J
Pastor Will’s “Talk to the boss” comment made me literally laugh out loud! Haha.
Thanks to both of you for a compelling and edifying series of videos. God bless!
He sounds like a priest of the Lantin Rite.
I really appreciate the work that you're doing. I am a Roman Catholic seeking to find my way, I hope, by learning more on Luther.
Lutheran theology is beautiful and it is catholic. The most consistent to the Bible and history in my opinion.
I have reconciled the idea that the bread and cup somehow become the body and blood of Christ with this analogy (I am not Roman Catholic). When I gave my life to Christ, His Spirit came to reside in me. If you were to run a chemical analysis of my body, you would find that nothing changed chemically. However, I have been sanctified and set apart for Christ. In a similar manner, when the cup and bread have been consecrated and set aside for sacramental use, there is no physical change to those objects. However, just like me, the bread and blood are now different from what they were before.
Amen.
Excellent analogy. Thank you for sharing.
DIXIE HALL----Have you ever considered finding out what the Catholic Church Actually teaches ? These pages are full of childish and evil descriptions of it. Do you ever read the
glowing comments posted by converts that find they have been lied to for years about the 2000 year old church ? Protestants that really know and love the bible become joyous and
devoted Catholics.
The scripture clearly teaches that we will not know all things - God is sovereign and some things we must just receive as they are, as He said them to us. Christ said "this is my body" and "this is my blood." So, it "is."
"Is" means "is." If He wanted us to know how it "is" then He would have told us in His Word. He did not tell us how it "is." He only said "this is."
He only told us that it "is" and that it "is" shed for the remission of sins. He also said that if we do not receive His Word as a child we shall not enter the Kingdom of God - children just believe it and so do I. The Bible says what it is says and does so plainly. Believe it plainly.
Brother Matt, thank you for the show. I personally would love to see you interview Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Mike Schmidt, Bishop Robert Baron, Dr. Brent Pitre. Pick your choice. I would personally choose Dr. Hahn as he is a convert and understand both sides really well of Protestant and Catholic. All the best brother, may God had always be with you and bless everything you do.
Would love to see an interview with Fr. Mike Schmitz!
Thanks for this set of videos! I really appreciate that you were willing to press Pastor Weedon on the practice of closed communion, rather than politely talk around it. It's something we folks in the LCMS wrestle with and it was good to hear him discuss the issue.
Luther is famously quoted saying: ”justification [Luther's understanding] is the article by which the church stands and falls.” Question: Why did the Church stand for 1500 years without having Luther's version of Justification? Why the Catholic Church stands until this day but the Protestant movement fell almost immediately disintegrating into hundreds of sects?
Actually...Luther never said that. As for the "so many sects" .... what you today know as the Roman Catholic Church came into existence at the Council of Trent, after the Reformation, in response to the Reformation. Further, the numbers of splinter from the Reformation event are rather easily explained. Was Luther or Calvin right? Was Luther or the radical reformers correct? The various splinter groups derive from Calvinism or the Radical Reformation. People want to make it sound "oh so complex" but it is not. And as we all know the Roman Communion is splintered asunder across the globe with a nearly "anything goes" just as long as everyone still salutes the Papacy, you can get away with virtually any heresy you want, as seen across Roman Catholic institutions of higher learning across the USA. So, a bit of realism is called for.
@@pault.mccain6637 Luther said/wrote: quia isto articulo stante stat Ecclesia, ruente ruit Ecclesia-“Because if this article [of justification] stands, the church stands; if this article collapses, the church collapses.” (WA 40/3.352.3) [Source: Alister McGrath]. Apparently, according to Lutherans, the church had collapsed the instant it was founded by Christ and the Holy Spirit and revived by Luther. Really??????
@@pault.mccain6637 Let's break your comment down: First, "Actually...Luther never said that." well maybe not verbatim but he definitely said it in essence (according to Lutherans). Second, "what you today know as the Roman Catholic Church came into existence at the Council" nice soundbite I heard that many times from Dr. Horton & Dr. Clark at Westminster Seminary, but that argument doesn't hold water because if "what I today know as the Roman Catholic Church came into existence at the Council [1545-63]" how come Luther in 1517 was protesting against something that wasn't in existence?? Third, "the Roman Communion is splintered asunder across the globe with a nearly "anything goes" just as long as everyone still salutes the Papacy" The Church Catholic is united by its doctrine and only those who remain in union with the successor of Peter are in the bosom of the Church, you would have to provide some specifics to substantiate your claim. Finally, "as seen across Roman Catholic institutions of higher learning across the USA", there are priests and theologians who are not faithful to the doctrine of the Church but it doesn't follow from it that the Church is not one nor that her Faith is not one.
Get this guy to talk to the Orthodox dude. That would be very entertaining! Both have very interesting personalities.
This guy needs his own podcast or channel. He could be great for spreading Lutheranism and the Gospel.
His daily podcast, The Word of the Lord Endures Forever, preaches through books of the bit by bit. Very edifying.
@@Mygoalwogel great, thank you!
Agree 💯
He shows that we are not so different. The world needs him
I really enjoyed this part of the interview. So much deep feeling. It really spoke to me. Especially when he talked about the body and blood and how life comes through eating and how death came in the beginning through eating. I also love how he discusses the remission of sins through communion because the body and blood are there. Ive always believed its a mystery , i dont claim to know, but id never thought of it in this way.Nothing speaks louder than someone who loves God and this man's love for God really shines. A real joy to see and I learned some things that I will keep with me.
Weedon's simple genius to explain is quite inspiring and why I think he would be a great bishop so many people can be exposed to his evangelism
not only that but Adam and Eve ate with a lack of faith in God's word and we eat with faith in his word. We fell because of lack of faith in God and we are restored to God by faith. The spirit of God hovers of the water in the first chapter of Genesis and God judged the world with a flood and killed off all but I believe 7 people and noah made a sacrafice and God vowed that he wouldn't destroy the world with a flood again and made a bow in the clouds to remember the covenant he made. Then with this same water we receive the holy spirit and are renewed before God. Abraham was given a promise that through his offspring salvation would come to the world and God commanded him to sacrifice Issac and as Abraham went to do it God stopped him but God doesn't withhold himself from us and sacrifices his Son Jesus that the sins of the world would be forgiven.
I’m not big into religion but thank God for leaving his word, because it’s the only book that seemed to explain what I went through. Peace
Grace and peace to you!!! His Word has the power to save!
I am a life long Lutheran and these videos have been wonderful! Good job.
When he speaks of the Eucharist he captures a great explanation of it and it is very similar to what Catholics teach. John 6 reinforces this. It is John 6:66 where he doubles down.
Lutherans tend to be averse to John 6, since Luther surrendered John 6 to Zwingli at the Marburg Colloquy. Zwingli argued that since John 6 was prior to the institution of the supper, the Jews had no context for understanding the teaching as anything other than metaphorical, and more specifically, Jesus' claim to be the bread from heaven was identification with the manna, which was bread without the promise of forgiveness attached, thus was a symbolic communication. Luther, for his part, rested his argument on the plain meaning of the verba - this is my body (or, as he by legend carved into the table at Marburg, hoc est corpus meum) - which he repeated over and against Zwingli's rationalist arguments.
I think Luther was wrong to surrender John 6 to Zwingli. The text foreshadows the institution of the supper and is plain as day what is necessary for salvation, even going so far as he says in 6:29, "the work of God is this: to believe in the One whom He has sent." Do we believe? Do we receive in faith? Or do we argue out of it rationally?
Nonetheless, it's rare to find Lutheran apologists citing John 6 for the Supper - not because they don't know the argument, it's just contrary to the tradition, and in our traditional view is unnecessary and weaker than just arguing for faith in Jesus' words.
Will Wheedon’s argument for the Real Presence was interesting because I’ve heard better ones, even from Catholics purely appealing to Scripture. Here’s a handful:
- When He first told His apostles that they would have to eat His body, they were very uncomfortable and said it was a “hard saying” (John 6:60). A bunch of people argued as a result, but Jesus never (at any time throughout the NT) corrected their understanding. They definitely seemed to be taking Him literally.
- The etymology of the way Paul talks about the Eucharist is extremely literal in the Greek: from the word for “is,” to the word for “body” to the word for “eat” (which literally means ‘gnaw’)
- The fact that Paul says the Eucharist can “bring judgment” on someone who drinks it unworthily: how can something which is just a symbol do that?
You might lean into the fact that Jesus does speak in metaphor sometimes - like when He says that He would tear down the temple and raise it up in three days (He was referring to His body, not the actual Temple in Jerusalem). But He sometimes speaks literally, like when He told His disciples He would have to die. So how do we know when He is or isn’t speaking literally?
To me, it makes perfect sense to settle that question by asking what Christians at the time believed: and they definitely did believe in the Real Presence, as early as 110 A.D with Ignatius of Antioch (who was John’s disciple): “These people abstain from the Eucharist as well as from prayer because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again from the dead.”
The same passage, Jesus literally says that, ‘the words I have spoken to you are spirit and are life’
I have no idea how people miss that
I really want to be positive about this, but there are a couple things this pastor misses about the Catholic Church:
5:59 - this is incorrect. The Catholic Church does not teach penances are necessary for absolution. In fact, telling someone to make their sin public to everyone's knowledge (returning the cow, turning one's self into the authorities, etc) is breaking the seal of confession and is a mortal sin on the part of the priest.
7:33 - an important distinction here. The child in the illustration does not forget a sin, but out of shame withholds confessing the sin. Therefore, he is committing sacrilege by distrusting the mercy of God and withholding sins he thinks are unforgivable.
I hope this isn't rude of me, but may I - as a Lutheran (WELS) - elaborate further on a couple points?
Concerning the labyrinthine complexity of our theology: Our theology is complex because God is complex. But at it's core it's dead simple - Jesus is God. Jesus's death and resurrection forgives freely. Praise Jesus.
Concerning the Real Presence in the Eucharist: We all agree that whichever one of us is wrong about this is freely forgiven. But we think we're objectively right, and we want to correct people who we think are objectively wrong. If you're curious about our reasons for this position, check out Dr. Jordan B Cooper's essay at "watch?v=sCEP-z4rGSU".
Concerning contemporary worship styles: There's nothing wrong with contemporary worship styles. Some of our churches use contemporary worship styles. But our traditional worship style has so much theological symbolism, why would we get rid of it?
Thanks for putting this series together Matt. God bless!
Absolutely brother! Amen.
I also wanted to hear that it is simple in Jesus on the cross for our sins, crucified, died, and risen again!
I also wanted to hear him explain the 5 solas a little better, or incorporate them, but I can't argue with how he presented it at all!
Christmas blessings to you!
I totally agree and this is coming from an ELCA Lutheran.
This Orthodox Lutheran take is scriptural and edifying, makes perfect sense to anyone who hasn't been indoctrinated against it by a competing seminary, believe me
Unfortunately you are an idiot if you think the Lutheran view on the eucharist is correct, for he said it needs to be swallowed FOR salvation (@) and that is 100% FALSE. Do you understand me? FALSE. Salvation is based on faith in the cross-work of Christ, PERIOD, and not on anything we put in our mouth! WAKE UP OH THOU FOOL. "Scriptural and edifying" my FOOT!
@@mojo7495 you're the idiot, he said that you can take a communion if you already saved or you accept the presence of the eucharist,
Eucharist is part of God's grace not our own works.!
you're not acting like a christian
@@mojo7495 No, he didn't. I wish you would listen. The WHOLE time, the WHOLE statement he gave was that Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. That Christ comes to us via His own words to us. (Again faith by hearing the Word of God).
I wish you could pay better attention. In all fairness, I'm LCMS, and well versed on our beliefs. But I can assure you, what you are saying, is errant. Period.
I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have, but screaming and calling someone raka when you clearly misunderstood them, is... well, there was someone who said something about that in the bible somewhere. Go spend some time finding and reading about that. You need more fruits in keeping with true repentance (like peace, patience, gentleness, etc.).
Mo Jo shut up and do not judge pal. Iam a Lutheran Orthodoxist and was raised in the Lutheran LCMS congregation in NY.
I love this PASTOR he is GENIUS!!!! This Lutheran Pastor is more devout about the Body and Blood of Christ than some Catholic Priests!
Except Lutherans don't get the Body and Blood of Christ. Their "Eucharist" is invalid, and remains just regular bread and wine.
@@T_frog1 says who? You? I rather believe what God says about this issue.
@@Solideogloria00 How many Eucharistic miracles has the Lutheran Church had?
I, for one, believe and agree with everything Rev. Weedon said!
I do too, except I think he got a little mixed up on the "U" of the Calvinist T.U.L.I.P. in the first sit-down video (2nd in the series). The "U" stands for Unconditional Election and not Unconditional Grace. Lutherans would not agree with Unconditional Election, rejecting in the Formula of Concord the idea of Election being like a military muster (or in modern terms, my own, as God arbitrarily picking the petals off a flower - "I love you. I love you not."). God may not have made us privy to the conditions, if any, concerning Election - but that doesn't mean that such conditions do not exist. It's like saying that since the Bible doesn't mention strawberry ice cream, strawberry ice cream doesn't exist - which would of course be false to which many widening midriffs can attest..
Other than that slight mix up concerning the T.U.L.I.P. (which is not a Lutheran construct anyway), Pastor Weedon did a tremendous job.
Have so enjoyed this set of videos on the lutherin church - so eye opening and brings an understanding of the roots of the reformation. Thank you for your passionate work on these videos, really appreciate them.
I already deleted my comment of three years ago because I was full of ignorance of my own church. Christ has set me free and has salvage me with His true body and blood that I receive every week in my mexican lutheran church. I can encounter Jesus every time I come to the Lords table. I didnt understand this great mystery and I dont understand still but at least I believe it fully and it has strengthen my faith and my confidence in Christ, resting in His work and his holy word and sacraments that give us the real substantial presence of our risen Lord. Thank God for the lonely way of the humble yet profound lutheran church, Amen.
Hallelujah! Welcome Home!
My faves from this series are the Lutheran and Orthodox so far.
That's because cathoilc is the centre of both.
Id argue Lutherans and Orthodox are much closer than it seems. The main disagreements seem to be merely polemic imo. E.g. sola scriptura is not literally only Bible, but you can not have things contradicting it. In orthodoxy you have focus on the tradition which agreed on the modern Bible, which today would be seen best in the rites of the church and, of course, the scripture itself.
As a new Lutheran, I really liked these discussions with Pastor Weedon. I was also impressed with Matt's interviews with a pastor of an African-American Baprist church in Alabama. You can hear more from Pastor Weedon by logging into "The Word of the Lord Ensures Forever."
No discussion about the different branches of Lutheranism?
My thoughts too.
My thoughts too.
I’m a Lutheran in Missouri Synod and my church allows all baptized Christians to take communion. Confusing.
@Matthew Bless
In my experience, those who condemn people for being "ridiculous" are usually very zealous for the traditions of their fathers. (Gal. 1:14)
@@alhilford2345 Regarding the question about the different Lutheran denominations (is that the right word?) because we have differences among ourselves that are large enough and important enough we want to be treated separately, yet not so large that they are totally separate (if that makes any sense). i.e. we agree on the most important things, hence still Lutheran, but disagree on relatively less important things (hence the need to be separate from one another)
I say this as a Catholic, this guy seems to be a terrific priest. Who wouldn’t want him at Sunday Mass?
He has a multi part series from the "Issues, Etc" radio show on the major parts of the liturgy and it is absolutely fantastic. You'd should look it up.
Lutheran vs Eastern Orthodox, that's my dilemma at the moment. I can never go back to the American Evangelical/non-denominational churches. Not after studying history, and learning about the Eucharist. The Eucharist is something much more than I was taught by Evangelicals.
@Michael Ratnam what do you mean?
I'm in the same dilemma.
@@StBindo I feel for you. It's been quite enlightening but also difficult trying to sort through church history. A friend of mine converted to orthodoxy a few years ago. I became disillusioned with modern American protestantism probably 14 years ago, and bounced around churches. Something always felt off. Then I went to my friends orthodox church and I said to myself, "this is how church is supposed to be done." But the problem is I'm turned off by alot of things that go along with orthodoxy.
@Michael Ratnam i really considered RC earlier this year. I mean I read up on it, watched hours and hours of videos and debated friends of mine(who are all ex-catholic orthodox converts) and I really believe that RC is somewhat close to original Christianity, but not close enough. Too many changes. A big sticking point for me was Papal authority over the other Bishops. I do believe the Bishop of the west was first among equals, but they were equal nonetheless. Plus norvus ordo. I'm trying to get away from those kinds of churches in protestantism.
@@chrisd653 Hi... It might help if you think that Jesus gave the "keys to the kingdom of heaven" to Peter only... :)