Dr. Ortlund, once again, thank you so much for your work as a scholar on these areas. The more I try to apprehend how much research a single subject alone takes, the more I genuinely appreciate how well read you are on these matters. You serve as such a helpful introduction and guide to those of us who feel lost in our attempts at Protestant retrieval. You have very quickly become one of my favorite pastor-scholars. Once again, thank you!!
Is the Catholic Church Jesus’ original church? The quotes provided below are historical facts in reference to our early church which existed prior to Romes adoption of Christianity in 313 A.D. Church: * "Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” [St. Ignatius of Antioch - Letter to the Smyrneans 8 (c. A.D. 110)] Bishop, Priest & Deacon: * “Since, then, I have had the privilege of seeing you, through Damas your most worthy bishop, and through your worthy presbyters Bassus and Apollonius, and through my fellow-servant the deacon Sotio, whose friendship may I ever enjoy, because he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ [St. Ignatius of Antioch- Letter to the Magnesians 2 (c. A.D. 110)]. Eucharist: * “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ, which have 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, Ash that suffered for our sins and that the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.” [St. Ignatius of Antioch - Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6-7 (c. A.D. 110)]. Scripture: * “[W]hoever perverts the sayings of the Lord for his own desires, and says that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, is the firstborn of Satan. Let us leave the foolishness and the false teaching of the crowd and turn back to the word that was delivered to us in the beginning.” [St. Polycrap of Smyrna - Letter to the Philippians 7 (c. A.D. 135)]. Sunday: * “But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead.” [St. Justin Martyr - First Apology 67 (c. A.D. 151)]. Actions/Works: * “We have learned from the prophets, and we believe it is true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man's actions. If it is not so, then all things happen by fate, and nothing is in our own power. If it is fated that this man be good, and this other evil, the former is not meritorious nor the latter blameworthy [St. Justin Martyr - First Apology 43 (c. A.D. 151)]. Apostolic Succession: * “It is within the power of all, in every church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the Tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were instituted bishops in the churches by the apostles, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew anything these [heretics] rave about.” [St. Irenaeus of Lyons - Against Heresies 3:3:1 (c. A.D. 189)] Baptism: * “The children shall be baptized first. All the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family.” [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 21 (c. A.D. 215)]. Confession: * “After this, one of the bishops present, at the request of all, laying his hand on him who is ordained bishop, shall pray this way: O God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. pour forth the power that is from you, of "the princely Spirit' that you delivered to your beloved Child, Jesus Christ, and that he bestowed on your holy apostles, who established the Church that hallows you everywhere, for the endless glory and praise of your name. Father, "who knows the hearts [of all]” grant this servant, who you have chosen for the episcopate, to feed your holy flock and serve as your high priest blamelessly night and day, and unceasingly turn away wrath from your face and offer to you the gifts of the holy Church. And that by the high priestly Spirit he may have authority "to forgive sins" according to your command.” [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 2-3 (c. A.D. 215)]. Confirmation: * “The bishop will then lay his hand upon them, invoking, "Lord God, you who have made these worthy of the removal of sins through the bath of regeneration, make them worthy to be filled with your Holy Spirit, grant to them your grace, that they might serve you according to your will, for to you is the glory, Father and Son with the Holy Spirit, in the holy Church, now and throughout the ages of the ages. Amen." After this he pours the oil into his hand, and laying his hand on each of their heads, says, "I anoint you with holy oil in God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus, and the Holy Spirit." Then, after sealing each of them on the forehead, he shall give them the kiss of peace and say, "The Lord be with you." And the one who has been baptized shall say, "And with your spirit." So shall he do to each one [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 21-22 (c. A.D. 215). Peter’s Authority: * “The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you,' he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. [Mt 16:18-19]. On him he builds the Church, and commands him to feed the sheep [Jn 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed the others were also what Peter was [apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, by which it is made clear that there is one Church and one chair.... If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he be confident that he is in the Church?.” [St. Cyprian of Carthage - Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition (Treatise 1:4) (A.D. 251)]. These few topics (but a glimpse) were not only discussed but settled BEFORE Rome adopted Christianity (The Catholic Church) and eventually became The Roman Catholic Church as it also adopted its name after 313 A.D. Is the Catholic Church Jesus’ original church? Yes! Does this excuse all its mistakes and sins from the record? Of course not! As Christians, we are called to hold the church accountable, not leave it and let evil flourish within it. This refusal of accountability within every Christian has led to over 40,000 diferente Christian churches and the ignorance which has flourished from it. “This will continue until we all come to such unity in our faith and knowledge of God’s Son that we will be mature in the Lord, measuring up to the full and complete standard of Christ. Then we will no longer be immature like children. We won’t be tossed and blown about by every wind of new teaching. We will not be influenced when people try to trick us with lies so clever they sound like the truth. Instead, we will speak the truth in love, growing in every way more and more like Christ, who is the head of his body, the church.” Ephesians 4:13-15 We are called by God to unite! What better church to do it under than the one he started.
In Catholic theology (I'm not Roman Catholic) it's a re-presentation of that sacrafice. Also, why does the Bible when it says (in rememberance) use a word describing sacrifice? www.christianbwagner.com/post/do-this-in-remembrance-of-me-probably-doesn-t-mean-what-you-think-it-means Secondly if you read the church fathers that Dr. Ortlund likes to mention, you can see what they taught yourself. 😁
Indeed, and it makes no sense to say that the Lord's Supper is a re-presentation of the one and only sacrifice of Christ on the cross, because that indicates that He did not once and for all carry all our sins onto the cross. This, in turn, invites the nefarious idea that only those sins we explicitly confess will be forgiven and forgotten by God.
As an orthodox Christian Christ was the new sacrifice and he fulfilled the prophecy. and now we partake in the tree of life both physically and spiritually. It’s an offering not a sacrifice. Instead of using blood sacrifices we offer out bread and wine and in turn he turns it into his body and blood.
Dr. Ortlund, this was timely, as always! Even though I watched that entire interview and planned on watching it at least one more time, the concept of the Eucharist as a sacrifice has been playing over and again in my head for the last two days, and this short clip helped bring a little more clarity to the issue. Here's a real dilemma though that I hope you can speak to in a video which no one is really talking about: What happens when a pastor or congregant comes to the point that they genuinely now believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? What are they to do? I realize that in some ways these are two separate questions, and need to be addressed a little differently, but it's a reality that can't really be ignored, especially if this is the only conviction they've changed their mind on and can't just become Lutheran or Catholic.
What is one to do? They have to pray a lot about these things, study the other foundational beliefs and history of the Christian groups, and in this process I expect that even if you don't 100% align with one group or another you align your values and faith primarily with one group over the other.
The Eucharist is a re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary, a unique event in space and time which also transcends space and time. It is God’s way of making present in the here and now a past reality, a powerful concept in the Semitic world but lost in translation into our Western culture and languages. I like the statement by an RC priest that God is bound TO the sacraments (in other words, He always honours them) but He is not bound BY them (in other words, He can and does also operate outside them).
ONE sacrifice and ONE covenantal feast we partake of. It is available and efficacious for all the faithful throughout all the world and throughout all of time. It is akin to Jesus, in John 6, feeding 5,000 men with the boy’s one sacrifice of 5 loaves and 2 fish.
Is the Catholic Church Jesus’ original church? The quotes provided below are historical facts in reference to our early church which existed prior to Romes adoption of Christianity in 313 A.D. Church: * "Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” [St. Ignatius of Antioch - Letter to the Smyrneans 8 (c. A.D. 110)] Bishop, Priest & Deacon: * “Since, then, I have had the privilege of seeing you, through Damas your most worthy bishop, and through your worthy presbyters Bassus and Apollonius, and through my fellow-servant the deacon Sotio, whose friendship may I ever enjoy, because he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ [St. Ignatius of Antioch- Letter to the Magnesians 2 (c. A.D. 110)]. Eucharist: * “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ, which have 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, Ash that suffered for our sins and that the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.” [St. Ignatius of Antioch - Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6-7 (c. A.D. 110)]. Scripture: * “[W]hoever perverts the sayings of the Lord for his own desires, and says that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, is the firstborn of Satan. Let us leave the foolishness and the false teaching of the crowd and turn back to the word that was delivered to us in the beginning.” [St. Polycrap of Smyrna - Letter to the Philippians 7 (c. A.D. 135)]. Sunday: * “But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead.” [St. Justin Martyr - First Apology 67 (c. A.D. 151)]. Actions/Works: * “We have learned from the prophets, and we believe it is true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man's actions. If it is not so, then all things happen by fate, and nothing is in our own power. If it is fated that this man be good, and this other evil, the former is not meritorious nor the latter blameworthy [St. Justin Martyr - First Apology 43 (c. A.D. 151)]. Apostolic Succession: * “It is within the power of all, in every church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the Tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were instituted bishops in the churches by the apostles, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew anything these [heretics] rave about.” [St. Irenaeus of Lyons - Against Heresies 3:3:1 (c. A.D. 189)] Baptism: * “The children shall be baptized first. All the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family.” [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 21 (c. A.D. 215)]. Confession: * “After this, one of the bishops present, at the request of all, laying his hand on him who is ordained bishop, shall pray this way: O God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. pour forth the power that is from you, of "the princely Spirit' that you delivered to your beloved Child, Jesus Christ, and that he bestowed on your holy apostles, who established the Church that hallows you everywhere, for the endless glory and praise of your name. Father, "who knows the hearts [of all]” grant this servant, who you have chosen for the episcopate, to feed your holy flock and serve as your high priest blamelessly night and day, and unceasingly turn away wrath from your face and offer to you the gifts of the holy Church. And that by the high priestly Spirit he may have authority "to forgive sins" according to your command.” [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 2-3 (c. A.D. 215)]. Confirmation: * “The bishop will then lay his hand upon them, invoking, "Lord God, you who have made these worthy of the removal of sins through the bath of regeneration, make them worthy to be filled with your Holy Spirit, grant to them your grace, that they might serve you according to your will, for to you is the glory, Father and Son with the Holy Spirit, in the holy Church, now and throughout the ages of the ages. Amen." After this he pours the oil into his hand, and laying his hand on each of their heads, says, "I anoint you with holy oil in God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus, and the Holy Spirit." Then, after sealing each of them on the forehead, he shall give them the kiss of peace and say, "The Lord be with you." And the one who has been baptized shall say, "And with your spirit." So shall he do to each one [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 21-22 (c. A.D. 215). Peter’s Authority: * “The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you,' he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. [Mt 16:18-19]. On him he builds the Church, and commands him to feed the sheep [Jn 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed the others were also what Peter was [apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, by which it is made clear that there is one Church and one chair.... If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he be confident that he is in the Church?.” [St. Cyprian of Carthage - Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition (Treatise 1:4) (A.D. 251)]. These few topics (but a glimpse) were not only discussed but settled BEFORE Rome adopted Christianity (The Catholic Church) and eventually became The Roman Catholic Church as it also adopted its name after 313 A.D. Is the Catholic Church Jesus’ original church? Yes! Does this excuse all its mistakes and sins from the record? Of course not! As Christians, we are called to hold the church accountable, not leave it and let evil flourish within it. This refusal of accountability within every Christian has led to over 40,000 diferente Christian churches and the ignorance which has flourished from it. “This will continue until we all come to such unity in our faith and knowledge of God’s Son that we will be mature in the Lord, measuring up to the full and complete standard of Christ. Then we will no longer be immature like children. We won’t be tossed and blown about by every wind of new teaching. We will not be influenced when people try to trick us with lies so clever they sound like the truth. Instead, we will speak the truth in love, growing in every way more and more like Christ, who is the head of his body, the church.” Ephesians 4:13-15 We are called by God to unite! What better church to do it under than the one he started.
1 Corinthians 11:24-25 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
@eucharistangel4662 you do realize that your argument doesn’t address my argument at all right? Jesus has one physical body and it is in Heaven. Jesus has 2 natures, the physical nature is not being re-sacrificed on altars all over the world and magically turning bread and wine into actual body and blood through the mystical, pagan magic of transubstantiation that only became a thing using Aristotelian metaphysics made popular by Aquinas….long, long, long after Christ. Real Presence is a real thing, it’s just not transubstantiation that developed over hundreds and hundreds of years after the apostles and is the lynchpin of the false gospel and unbiblical mass of Rome. Understand the incarnation and the human nature of Christ and this becomes much clearer for you. I’ll pray for you
I liked hearing what Martin Chemnitz had to say about the Eucharist from 4:38-5:33. It’s a very helpful explanation, coming as it does from a highly respected Lutheran theologian, because I’m attending a Lutheran Church (LCMS) where I don’t always agree with their language about it.
Is the Catholic Church Jesus’ original church? The quotes provided below are historical facts in reference to our early church which existed prior to Romes adoption of Christianity in 313 A.D. Church: * "Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” [St. Ignatius of Antioch - Letter to the Smyrneans 8 (c. A.D. 110)] Bishop, Priest & Deacon: * “Since, then, I have had the privilege of seeing you, through Damas your most worthy bishop, and through your worthy presbyters Bassus and Apollonius, and through my fellow-servant the deacon Sotio, whose friendship may I ever enjoy, because he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ [St. Ignatius of Antioch- Letter to the Magnesians 2 (c. A.D. 110)]. Eucharist: * “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ, which have 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, Ash that suffered for our sins and that the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.” [St. Ignatius of Antioch - Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6-7 (c. A.D. 110)]. Scripture: * “[W]hoever perverts the sayings of the Lord for his own desires, and says that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, is the firstborn of Satan. Let us leave the foolishness and the false teaching of the crowd and turn back to the word that was delivered to us in the beginning.” [St. Polycrap of Smyrna - Letter to the Philippians 7 (c. A.D. 135)]. Sunday: * “But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead.” [St. Justin Martyr - First Apology 67 (c. A.D. 151)]. Actions/Works: * “We have learned from the prophets, and we believe it is true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man's actions. If it is not so, then all things happen by fate, and nothing is in our own power. If it is fated that this man be good, and this other evil, the former is not meritorious nor the latter blameworthy [St. Justin Martyr - First Apology 43 (c. A.D. 151)]. Apostolic Succession: * “It is within the power of all, in every church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the Tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were instituted bishops in the churches by the apostles, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew anything these [heretics] rave about.” [St. Irenaeus of Lyons - Against Heresies 3:3:1 (c. A.D. 189)] Baptism: * “The children shall be baptized first. All the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family.” [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 21 (c. A.D. 215)]. Confession: * “After this, one of the bishops present, at the request of all, laying his hand on him who is ordained bishop, shall pray this way: O God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. pour forth the power that is from you, of "the princely Spirit' that you delivered to your beloved Child, Jesus Christ, and that he bestowed on your holy apostles, who established the Church that hallows you everywhere, for the endless glory and praise of your name. Father, "who knows the hearts [of all]” grant this servant, who you have chosen for the episcopate, to feed your holy flock and serve as your high priest blamelessly night and day, and unceasingly turn away wrath from your face and offer to you the gifts of the holy Church. And that by the high priestly Spirit he may have authority "to forgive sins" according to your command.” [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 2-3 (c. A.D. 215)]. Confirmation: * “The bishop will then lay his hand upon them, invoking, "Lord God, you who have made these worthy of the removal of sins through the bath of regeneration, make them worthy to be filled with your Holy Spirit, grant to them your grace, that they might serve you according to your will, for to you is the glory, Father and Son with the Holy Spirit, in the holy Church, now and throughout the ages of the ages. Amen." After this he pours the oil into his hand, and laying his hand on each of their heads, says, "I anoint you with holy oil in God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus, and the Holy Spirit." Then, after sealing each of them on the forehead, he shall give them the kiss of peace and say, "The Lord be with you." And the one who has been baptized shall say, "And with your spirit." So shall he do to each one [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 21-22 (c. A.D. 215). Peter’s Authority: * “The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you,' he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. [Mt 16:18-19]. On him he builds the Church, and commands him to feed the sheep [Jn 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed the others were also what Peter was [apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, by which it is made clear that there is one Church and one chair.... If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he be confident that he is in the Church?.” [St. Cyprian of Carthage - Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition (Treatise 1:4) (A.D. 251)]. These few topics (but a glimpse) were not only discussed but settled BEFORE Rome adopted Christianity (The Catholic Church) and eventually became The Roman Catholic Church as it also adopted its name after 313 A.D. Is the Catholic Church Jesus’ original church? Yes! Does this excuse all its mistakes and sins from the record? Of course not! As Christians, we are called to hold the church accountable, not leave it and let evil flourish within it. This refusal of accountability within every Christian has led to over 40,000 diferente Christian churches and the ignorance which has flourished from it. “This will continue until we all come to such unity in our faith and knowledge of God’s Son that we will be mature in the Lord, measuring up to the full and complete standard of Christ. Then we will no longer be immature like children. We won’t be tossed and blown about by every wind of new teaching. We will not be influenced when people try to trick us with lies so clever they sound like the truth. Instead, we will speak the truth in love, growing in every way more and more like Christ, who is the head of his body, the church.” Ephesians 4:13-15 We are called by God to unite! What better church to do it under than the one he started.
@@Antonio.R.O.C. Thanks for the quotes that you’ve selected from the early Church Fathers. As a Protestant, my concern with such quotes is to discern whether or not any of them conflict with the clear teachings of the New Testament scriptures, the standard for judging all Christian traditions. I don’t see that any of them necessarily do, except maybe Cyprian; but only in the sense that quotes like his are used to defend the later Roman Catholic doctrine of the Pope.
@Elisabet Zamora The Bible doesn’t say those exact words, but neither does it use the word “Trinity” to teach about the triune nature of God. I said something slightly different, though. I said, “the New Testament scriptures (are) the standard for judging all Christian traditions,” because even though the fundamental Christian doctrines we all agree upon were formulated from the scriptures by the early Church, for some reason all the Christian sects since then (whether Orthodox, Roman Catholic or Protestant) have ended up with differing doctrines (or traditions) from each other. It seems to me that the answer to this is to try to go back to the teachings of the NT scriptures in as unbiased of a way as possible. The Orthodox appeal to Holy Tradition, the RCs appeal to the Magisterium, and conservative Protestants appeal to the historical-grammatical method as the best method of interpretation. Although it isn’t perfect, I agree with this approach because it attempts to take the Bible on it’s own terms.
Historian here with fun facts. The Eucharist ritual is one of many things Christians made, changed, adapted in their desire to distance themselves from Jewish practices. Why would Christians want to do this? Roman Christians were trying to avoid being caught up in the Jewish-Roman Wars 66-135CE. Hope that helps
As a baptist-turned-Episcopalian, I try to not import my stuff into the experience. Part of my problem is that the 1662 BCP is very Cramnerian, but my 1979 BCP seems less Protestant, because of the Oxford movement, I’m not really sure what true Anglican theology is in 2024. I feed on Him in my heart by faith with thanksgiving. I offer my body as a living sacrifice Ro 12:1. I offer the sacrifice of praise from my lips Heb 13:15. I offer my profession of The Name and confess Jesus as Lord Heb 13 again. I offer my sacrifice of sharing and hospitality and good deeds to neighbor, again Heb 13. It seems like between Rom 12 and Heb 13 we see a whole theology of sacrifice of ourselves to Jesus, United in Him with neighbor, played out dramatically as Theo drama in the mass, which serves to bind us together in an ancient ritual of sitting down together for a meal, which is only done in peace not hostility. Like making a covenant with someone in Torah where the animal is cut into pieces and the parties pass between the pieces, weird, so in the first century Greek world the reciprocity of gift giving is played out In a meal, where incongruent power structures are subverted by the grace and mercy of the higher party for the benefit of the lower party, to our everlasting salvation. Seems like Barclays work in grace should be cited in any theology of Eucharist as he is an Anglican expert on grace as developed by Protestant heroes like Luther and Barth and Zwingli. Barclay is good at pointing out the very good leaps by Luther toward the perfection of grace by incongruity (unequal reciprocity of gift giving where our gift will never equal Christ the gift). But we must nonetheless come with gifts and offerings to thank our lord in our humble estate, Romans 12:1-2 by offering our bodies to Him.
Thanks for the interesting thoughts! I wanted to ask why it seems impossible to include dead people in the sacrifice of Christ? When we serve the Divine Liturgy in Orthodoxy, we in Christ unite His entire body (the entire Church). There are no dead, everyone is alive, there is no time, there is eternity - and here, in this ascent to Heaven, to the future Kingdom of God, we see around us all the Christians who are, were, and (as I understand) still will be. We are already in the eighth day, we have left the aeon of the fallen world, and therefore the word "dead" is generally of little use for the Eucharist, for it is the sacrament of the future age. Why are you embarrassed by the moment of including the dead in the sacrifice?
@@craigsherman4480 Yes, it may be so... Although in those books of Scripture that Protestantism does not reject (for example, the epistles of the holy apostles), it is said to pray for each other. And at the same time it is said: "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for with Him all are alive." 2 Timothy 1:18: "May the Lord grant him to find favor with the Lord on that day." This is Paul's prayer for Onesiphorus, who was no longer alive. Ephesians 6:18: "Pray with every prayer and supplication at all times for all the saints." Here the apostle Paul does not divide the saints into those who are on earth and those who are in heaven, but says to pray for all the saints. Deuteronomy 26:14: "I ... did not give of it (the tithe) for the dead...". These words do not speak of prayer, but of almsgiving done for the sake of the departed, which is also practiced by the Orthodox Church, and which is absent in Protestantism. This verse indicates that the Jews of the Old Testament gave from their income for the dead, that is, they gave alms to the living for the sake of the dead, but not from tithes. In the tombstones of the primordial Church, we find prayers for the dead: “Lord, may the soul of Venus never be darkened” - a clear example of a prayer for the dead. “Lord, I beg you, may he see the light of paradise. Rest easy. Eternal light to you, Timothy in Christ” - these words contain both 1) a prayer for the deceased Timothy, and 2) a prayer appeal to him. All (!) ancient liturgies also contain prayers for the departed. Here are some examples. From the liturgy of the Apostolic Ordinances: “We also bring to you and for all those who have pleased you from time immemorial, saints, patriarchs, prophets, righteous people, apostles, martyrs, confessors, bishops, presbyters, deacons, subdeacons, readers, singers, virgins, widows, laity and all, whose names You Yourself know." “Let us commemorate the holy martyrs so that we may be honored to be partakers of their deeds. Let us pray for those who have rested in faith." From the liturgy of the Holy Apostle James: “Let us pray to the Lord for the repose of the departed fathers and brothers.” “Let us remember all the saints and the righteous, so that by their prayers and intercession we all may have mercy.” “Remember, Lord, God of spirits and all flesh, the Orthodox, whom we have remembered and whom we have not remembered, from the righteous Abel to this day; Rest them yourself there, in the land of the living, in Your Kingdom, in the delight of paradise, in the bowels of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, our holy fathers, from where sickness, sorrow and sighing have departed, where the light of Your face is seen and shines unceasingly. And so on, the examples can be multiplied... That is, it's not just that the books of Maccabees are denied - other passages from Scripture are denied, as well as the experience of the early Church.
Is the Catholic Church Jesus’ original church? The quotes provided below are historical facts in reference to our early church which existed prior to Romes adoption of Christianity in 313 A.D. Church: * "Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” [St. Ignatius of Antioch - Letter to the Smyrneans 8 (c. A.D. 110)] Bishop, Priest & Deacon: * “Since, then, I have had the privilege of seeing you, through Damas your most worthy bishop, and through your worthy presbyters Bassus and Apollonius, and through my fellow-servant the deacon Sotio, whose friendship may I ever enjoy, because he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ [St. Ignatius of Antioch- Letter to the Magnesians 2 (c. A.D. 110)]. Eucharist: * “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ, which have 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, Ash that suffered for our sins and that the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.” [St. Ignatius of Antioch - Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6-7 (c. A.D. 110)]. Scripture: * “[W]hoever perverts the sayings of the Lord for his own desires, and says that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, is the firstborn of Satan. Let us leave the foolishness and the false teaching of the crowd and turn back to the word that was delivered to us in the beginning.” [St. Polycrap of Smyrna - Letter to the Philippians 7 (c. A.D. 135)]. Sunday: * “But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead.” [St. Justin Martyr - First Apology 67 (c. A.D. 151)]. Actions/Works: * “We have learned from the prophets, and we believe it is true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man's actions. If it is not so, then all things happen by fate, and nothing is in our own power. If it is fated that this man be good, and this other evil, the former is not meritorious nor the latter blameworthy [St. Justin Martyr - First Apology 43 (c. A.D. 151)]. Apostolic Succession: * “It is within the power of all, in every church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the Tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were instituted bishops in the churches by the apostles, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew anything these [heretics] rave about.” [St. Irenaeus of Lyons - Against Heresies 3:3:1 (c. A.D. 189)] Baptism: * “The children shall be baptized first. All the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family.” [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 21 (c. A.D. 215)]. Confession: * “After this, one of the bishops present, at the request of all, laying his hand on him who is ordained bishop, shall pray this way: O God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. pour forth the power that is from you, of "the princely Spirit' that you delivered to your beloved Child, Jesus Christ, and that he bestowed on your holy apostles, who established the Church that hallows you everywhere, for the endless glory and praise of your name. Father, "who knows the hearts [of all]” grant this servant, who you have chosen for the episcopate, to feed your holy flock and serve as your high priest blamelessly night and day, and unceasingly turn away wrath from your face and offer to you the gifts of the holy Church. And that by the high priestly Spirit he may have authority "to forgive sins" according to your command.” [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 2-3 (c. A.D. 215)]. Confirmation: * “The bishop will then lay his hand upon them, invoking, "Lord God, you who have made these worthy of the removal of sins through the bath of regeneration, make them worthy to be filled with your Holy Spirit, grant to them your grace, that they might serve you according to your will, for to you is the glory, Father and Son with the Holy Spirit, in the holy Church, now and throughout the ages of the ages. Amen." After this he pours the oil into his hand, and laying his hand on each of their heads, says, "I anoint you with holy oil in God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus, and the Holy Spirit." Then, after sealing each of them on the forehead, he shall give them the kiss of peace and say, "The Lord be with you." And the one who has been baptized shall say, "And with your spirit." So shall he do to each one [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 21-22 (c. A.D. 215). Peter’s Authority: * “The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you,' he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. [Mt 16:18-19]. On him he builds the Church, and commands him to feed the sheep [Jn 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed the others were also what Peter was [apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, by which it is made clear that there is one Church and one chair.... If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he be confident that he is in the Church?.” [St. Cyprian of Carthage - Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition (Treatise 1:4) (A.D. 251)]. These few topics (but a glimpse) were not only discussed but settled BEFORE Rome adopted Christianity (The Catholic Church) and eventually became The Roman Catholic Church as it also adopted its name after 313 A.D. Is the Catholic Church Jesus’ original church? Yes! Does this excuse all its mistakes and sins from the record? Of course not! As Christians, we are called to hold the church accountable, not leave it and let evil flourish within it. This refusal of accountability within every Christian has led to over 40,000 diferente Christian churches and the ignorance which has flourished from it. “This will continue until we all come to such unity in our faith and knowledge of God’s Son that we will be mature in the Lord, measuring up to the full and complete standard of Christ. Then we will no longer be immature like children. We won’t be tossed and blown about by every wind of new teaching. We will not be influenced when people try to trick us with lies so clever they sound like the truth. Instead, we will speak the truth in love, growing in every way more and more like Christ, who is the head of his body, the church.” Ephesians 4:13-15 We are called by God to unite! What better church to do it under than the one he started.
Stop spreading the myth that the catholic church is a united body of believers. It's not. Catholics church hop all the time, they argue over their magisterium, you got bishops pushing lgbtq and so on. It's not united. And that's OK. But don't spread misinformation.
Thanks for all you do Gavin! Do you have any good recommendations for resources on the Eucharist? Mainly looking for good exegetical works on it from a Protestant point of view but I would gladly look at different traditions aswell. Be it papers, articles, books or stuff like that. Thanks in advance!
The Eucharistic prayers in RC say that the elements are offered up to God. Luther took issue with the directionality -- offered to God as propitiation rather than to us as a sacrament. Are you ok with that language?
Of course it is. It is THAT sacrifice. It's not s re-sacrifice. Time is not so linear as we imagine. We are differed the fruits of that same sacrifice, timeless. It's not a once and for all thing, it's a out of time reality, always available for all. It's where and how eternity flows into ttemporality, becomes temporality, the source and substance of all life and being.
I think on this issue, and many others, a lot of people need to go read what the word "Equivocation" means. Maybe just spend a couple hours on some lazy Saturday morning studying what that word means and learning everything possible about it. I'll just leave it at that.
Dr. Gavin, I know you believe that Christ sacrifice was once and for all, but I could not figure out from your video how you relate that to the Roman Catholic sacrificial mass focused on the Eucharist. Would a participant in that system receive extra graces from the Eucharist? Are they pardoned from sins? It’s a big deal to miss a Mass for even just a week. Why do you believe that is? Would love to hear your views on this
As prohesied in Malachi. Malachi 1:11 (RSVCE): "11 For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts." This pure offering (sacrifice) is the Holy Eucharist and what makes it pure is because it is the unblemished body and blood of our Lord replacing the blemished sacrifices in the Old. Talking about typology =)
@@florida8953 the parallel is undeniable. This prophecy in Malachi clearly refers to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Holy Eucharist. Isn't it nothing comes close to being a pure offering than the Body and Blood of our Lord? If the bread and wine is just a represention, as protestants claim, then it isn't pure. For how else can this pure offering be other than the unblemished Body and Blood of Christ? Moreso, the passage says this pure offering is fulfilled from the rising of the sun to its setting, meaning it happens all the time day by day and in many places, just as the Holy Mass have been. If there's a better parallel than that, then i don't know what it is.
@@shepherdson6189 Playing the "devil's advocate" how do you know that Malachi 1:11 is referring to the Eucharist? Why not a sacrifice of praise, thanksgiving, or prayer? Or even the sacrifice of oneself to God (Romans 12:1-2)?
@@mosesking2923 The use of incense at every mass being celebrated in many parts of the world literaly from the rising of the sun to its setting at almost every hour due to the time differences are particular characteristics of these pure offering mentioned in the passage. But more importantly it is the presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the species of bread and wine, the Holy Eucharist, makes the Mass the purest offering, praise and thanks giving pre figured in the Old through animal sacrifices and perfected in the New through the unblemished Body and Blood of Christ the Lamb of God. Can any praise, thanksgiving and worship better represent Malachi 1:11?
Anamnesis means memorial sacrifice. Christ instructs us to "Do this in memorial sacrifice of me". The sacrifice is not a new sacrifice, but joining with Christ's eternal sacrifice.
This was an interesting one. I wasn't expecting the answer that an historic protestant view was to affirm eucharist as 'a sacrifice'. That's just my ignorance of history, though. Having heard it now I don't like it and would go so far as to say I disagree with using that term for the eucharist. The reason for this is that using the terms is inherently confusing. I think the fact that after having given the short answer of 'yes' it's a sacrifice, Dr. Ortlund then had to engage in all sorts of explanations to define the term. It's in indication that the two groups are using the terms differently which will likely be confusing for anyone unfamiliar with all the nuance. That's a good reason to avoid it. It also means that it becomes pointless to use that term, since the word itself isn't bringing key, helpful meaning, it always has to be defined or redefined. Lastly, just from a simple grammatical standpoint, we know that Christ's sacrifice on the cross is 'THE' sacrifice. The description provided by Dr. Ortlund defined the eucharist as an act that connects us to 'THE' sacrifice, implying just one sacrifice and the sacraments as a connection to it. However, just using the English article, 'a' sacrifice, to most people implies a different, other sacrifice to 'THE' sacrifice. Christ's death was a sacrifice, and the eucharist is also 'a' sacrifice (another one). Once you have two sacrifices you have an issue. Because these terms exist historically and are used by some even in the present day, it's helpful to try to understand what's going on, but I think in answer to the video's title question, the answer today, for most people, in English at least, has to be 'no', it's not a sacrifice. Of course, that presents its own questions, but for me that's appropriate. Better to deal with those questions there rather than risk misleading people for no real gain. Side note, if I can dare offer some feedback/a suggestion for Dr. Ortlund's speaking style. I think you can get away with being more direct and succinct that you often are. It would even be helpful. I can hear your tendency to think through your awareness of nuance and multiple theoretical responses as you speak, so you're very, very careful with your words and you build your case as you go, touching on those things. It sometimes drags things out a lot though. I don't think you necessarily have to be so 'apologetic' (no pun intended!), in how you speak, in order to maintain your irenic approach. It might sometimes be better just to give a succinct and clear answer up front, which may generate questions, and then go on to address those questions afterwards, rather than rabbit trail so much on your way to finally making your point. Of course, you were also speaking off the cuff which isn't easy, and all of this might just be how you 'think out loud'. Either way, it was clear in the end, I just found myself wanting to hear you get to the point faster, because I knew you would go on to clarify things later. Your irenic heart is clear. There's little risk of you erring the other way, I think. So don't be afraid to be a bit more clear cut and direct up front, and then address questions later... maybe. Thanks for all you do. It's a great blessing. G.
Two sacrifices (korbanot) were incumbent on the High Priest. One was the annual Atonement Offering in the Spring - a blood sacrifice on account of the sin of the golden calf. This was abolished by Christ's self-offering. The other was the grain offering (mincha - see Hebrew text of Malachi 1:11). Every priest had do make this offering on his first day in service.The High Priest uniquely had make one every day, but he usually deputised other priests to do it for him. The Eucharist is analogous to the grain offering.
Gavin, help me. I respect you a lot, but in a previous video you said something along the lines of, "Protestants should continue to Reform," and here you are saying, "Let's go back to the Reformers." I'm confused and although I'm not sure it is a contradiction, it would help if you explained appealing to the founders of the Reformation rather than either ECF or continuing to Reform.
Is the Catholic Church Jesus’ original church? The quotes provided below are historical facts in reference to our early church which existed prior to Romes adoption of Christianity in 313 A.D. Church: * "Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” [St. Ignatius of Antioch - Letter to the Smyrneans 8 (c. A.D. 110)] Bishop, Priest & Deacon: * “Since, then, I have had the privilege of seeing you, through Damas your most worthy bishop, and through your worthy presbyters Bassus and Apollonius, and through my fellow-servant the deacon Sotio, whose friendship may I ever enjoy, because he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ [St. Ignatius of Antioch- Letter to the Magnesians 2 (c. A.D. 110)]. Eucharist: * “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ, which have 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, Ash that suffered for our sins and that the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.” [St. Ignatius of Antioch - Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6-7 (c. A.D. 110)]. Scripture: * “[W]hoever perverts the sayings of the Lord for his own desires, and says that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, is the firstborn of Satan. Let us leave the foolishness and the false teaching of the crowd and turn back to the word that was delivered to us in the beginning.” [St. Polycrap of Smyrna - Letter to the Philippians 7 (c. A.D. 135)]. Sunday: * “But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead.” [St. Justin Martyr - First Apology 67 (c. A.D. 151)]. Actions/Works: * “We have learned from the prophets, and we believe it is true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man's actions. If it is not so, then all things happen by fate, and nothing is in our own power. If it is fated that this man be good, and this other evil, the former is not meritorious nor the latter blameworthy [St. Justin Martyr - First Apology 43 (c. A.D. 151)]. Apostolic Succession: * “It is within the power of all, in every church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the Tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were instituted bishops in the churches by the apostles, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew anything these [heretics] rave about.” [St. Irenaeus of Lyons - Against Heresies 3:3:1 (c. A.D. 189)] Baptism: * “The children shall be baptized first. All the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family.” [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 21 (c. A.D. 215)]. Confession: * “After this, one of the bishops present, at the request of all, laying his hand on him who is ordained bishop, shall pray this way: O God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. pour forth the power that is from you, of "the princely Spirit' that you delivered to your beloved Child, Jesus Christ, and that he bestowed on your holy apostles, who established the Church that hallows you everywhere, for the endless glory and praise of your name. Father, "who knows the hearts [of all]” grant this servant, who you have chosen for the episcopate, to feed your holy flock and serve as your high priest blamelessly night and day, and unceasingly turn away wrath from your face and offer to you the gifts of the holy Church. And that by the high priestly Spirit he may have authority "to forgive sins" according to your command.” [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 2-3 (c. A.D. 215)]. Confirmation: * “The bishop will then lay his hand upon them, invoking, "Lord God, you who have made these worthy of the removal of sins through the bath of regeneration, make them worthy to be filled with your Holy Spirit, grant to them your grace, that they might serve you according to your will, for to you is the glory, Father and Son with the Holy Spirit, in the holy Church, now and throughout the ages of the ages. Amen." After this he pours the oil into his hand, and laying his hand on each of their heads, says, "I anoint you with holy oil in God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus, and the Holy Spirit." Then, after sealing each of them on the forehead, he shall give them the kiss of peace and say, "The Lord be with you." And the one who has been baptized shall say, "And with your spirit." So shall he do to each one [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 21-22 (c. A.D. 215). Peter’s Authority: * “The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you,' he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. [Mt 16:18-19]. On him he builds the Church, and commands him to feed the sheep [Jn 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed the others were also what Peter was [apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, by which it is made clear that there is one Church and one chair.... If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he be confident that he is in the Church?.” [St. Cyprian of Carthage - Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition (Treatise 1:4) (A.D. 251)]. These few topics (but a glimpse) were not only discussed but settled BEFORE Rome adopted Christianity (The Catholic Church) and eventually became The Roman Catholic Church as it also adopted its name after 313 A.D. Is the Catholic Church Jesus’ original church? Yes! Does this excuse all its mistakes and sins from the record? Of course not! As Christians, we are called to hold the church accountable, not leave it and let evil flourish within it. This refusal of accountability within every Christian has led to over 40,000 diferente Christian churches and the ignorance which has flourished from it. “This will continue until we all come to such unity in our faith and knowledge of God’s Son that we will be mature in the Lord, measuring up to the full and complete standard of Christ. Then we will no longer be immature like children. We won’t be tossed and blown about by every wind of new teaching. We will not be influenced when people try to trick us with lies so clever they sound like the truth. Instead, we will speak the truth in love, growing in every way more and more like Christ, who is the head of his body, the church.” Ephesians 4:13-15 We are called by God to unite! What better church to do it under than the one he started.
Not to speak for Pastor Ortlund but I would suggest the answer lies in the nature of reformation. The heart of reformation is in movement towards the Scriptures, the Word of God, the gospel of Jesus Christ, whichever way you want to phrase that. The famous historical reformers weren't trying to improve or modify or progress Roman Catholic Christianity in some general direction, but rather were trying to get them to reform what they had based on the word of God. It was, in a sense, Roman Catholicism that was 'progressing' their faith along the line of the teaching of men in their magisterium. They had an idea there and were following along with it. They had become untethered from the anchor of the Scriptures and floating in the direction of the leading of men, or following the pattern of men. So reformation is to re-form the faith based on the pattern of faith revealed in the Scriptures. As such, present day Protestants should always be reforming so that they form or re-form faith based on that unchanging pattern of faith, in the face of drift both ancient and new.
@@galantkoh3917 I would agree with wanting to avoid the phrase progress when it comes to the gospel message, but I think it's fine in general to talk about the church progressing at least in terms of ethics, theology and liturgical practice. Many societal issues took a long time for the gospel to penetrate the general church community and are still a work in progress in certain ways (slavery, racism, women's rights) The passage of time and the work of the Holy Spirit will certainly reveal gaps in our own time we do not yet see. In this sense (at least it seems to me) the church is slowly but surely bringing the gospel to bare on more of our every day lives. I think it is fair to cast this as a progression toward the gospel in a way that is new for the Church, though as you said it is the application of something unchanging. Also our theological knowledge has grown in specificity. Though it (ideally) is not describing anything new, we progress in our ability to effectively and clearly communicate theological concepts, and discard unhelpful or less correct formulations. (Communicating the trinity as three persons and one essence for example, and Christ Jesus as one person with two natures) Regarding liturgical practice, as the gospel expands to a larger and larger set of cultures and contexts it seems natural to me that different church environments and routines become more or less effective and new "innovations" are required in this realm, to "be all things to all people" Though again it is simply a repacking of the unchanging gospel.
help me understand where you see a contradiction. Returning to historic Protestant views on some matters and continually reforming the church are not at odds, so far as I can tell.
Of course the Holy Eucharist is a sacrifice. Our Blessed Lord instituted it in the context of the Passover. “Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore, let us celebrate the feast.”
Dr. Ortland, this is not an area I am well versed. I do remember reading Calvin, especially his commentary on Hebrews, condemning the idea of the eucharist as a sacrifice. I'm clear that much of medieval piety turned into a re-sacrifice. But in his commentary on Hebrews he condemned the idea of the bloodless sacrifice. I assumed he was condemning the Eastern liturgy (Basil) which uses that term. Is there something else in play here?
Dr. Ortlund has problem with Mass for the dead, that is Mass for the souls in purgatory. The problem is on purgatory, which any good Protestant would object. The root of the problem or why they reject purgatory is double imputation taught by the Reformers: through faith alone we get Christ' righteousness imputed on or credited to us while our sins, past AND future, are imputed on or credited to Christ (who bore them on the cross). If this is the case, then we do not need purgatory. Is double imputation scriptural?
Except your quote verse 28. I quote verse 29 of Matthew's Gospel: " But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it with you, new, in My Father’s kingdom.”. The passage only works if you dont read the full passage.
Dr. Ortlund, I think you might find the commentary in Abbot Vonier's excellent book 'A Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist' helpful. Here are some quotes from the chapter on 'The Essence of the Eucharistic Sacrifice': • The essence, then, of the sacrifice of the Mass ought to be completely stated before we touch Christ in the personal aspect; that is to say, the Eucharistic sacrifice is not directly a mystery of Christ’s Person, it is primarily a mystery of Christ’s Body and Blood. • Christ’s Body is offered up, Christ’s Blood is offered up; these are the inward kernel of the external sign in the sacrificial rite; and beyond these-the Body and the Blood-the sacrament, as sacrament, does not go. • When we offer up the great sacrifice we say that we are re-enacting Christ’s death sacramentally. Now Christ’s death is the separation of His Body and Blood; we do neither more nor less when we sacrifice at the altar. • We do not enter directly into the mystery of Christ’s Person; we enter into the mystery of His Body and Blood. • But let us constantly remember that in the sacrament we are not dealing with the natural life of Christ; we are dealing with His representative life. • If we were to say that at the sacrifice of the Mass Christ comes down from heaven and is sacrificed again, we should be expressing the mystery of the Eucharist in a totally wrong way. • When Christ was Body and Blood only, He was the perfect sacrifice; and the Eucharist is a perfect sacrifice because it again makes present-such is the literal meaning of representation-all there was on this earth of Christ when His Soul had been given up to the Father. • After His death, and before His Resurrection, Christ was truly on this earth; but in what state! His Body was lifeless and bloodless, His Blood was poured out, and the earth drank it as it had drunk the blood of Abel; yet in this broken condition the Person of Christ remained, for the death of Christ was not as the death of Abel. • Hypostatic Union survived that great dissolution-that is to say, the divine Person of the Word remained united as before, both with the Body and Blood of Christ; • The Person of Christ as Person remained entire, though His human nature had been broken; so that it may be said in all exactness of theological language, that the Body and Blood on Calvary or in the sepulcher were Christ, on account of the divine Person hypostatically united to them. • It is the genius and very nature of the Christian sacrament to be an act which may be repeated indefinitely, though the content, or, if you like, the object of the act, be immutable.
Only Protestants would question this, which speaks volumes about their inadequate faith system. Research Eucharistic miracles which science can’t explain. Debate doesn’t satisfy, truth does. Also Mal 1:11
How I long for the day the Eucharist (Christ himselfk) can become the focal point of gathering among evangelical Christians rather than a sermon that depends on the preacher.
Gavin, do you accept the practice of praying for the dead? If you want to talk about something that is easily provable to go back to the early Church, that would be one of them. Jews pray for the dead. Every Church with roots in the ancient Church prays for the dead. You find references to it all over the place, including in the Deuterocanonical books, St. Cyril's catechetical lectures, and in St. Augustine's writings -- where, for example, he mentions that his mother's last request was that he remember her at the Liturgy.
Hi John, this is a bit off topic from this video, but yes, historically most Protestants have not objected to prayers for the dead per se, but only the abuse of the practice. E.g., the Augsburg Confession stated that "we do not prohibit" the practice, but objectes to practices that had accrued over time (like masses for the dead) and fallen into great commercial scandal. Similarly with, say, Anglican and Methodist views. In areas where there is strong and early historical precedent for a practice in the church, we do not dissent, and seek not to bind consciences in areas where the data is unclear. What we object to instead are practices where the evidence is strongly against a particular practice or doctrine being apostolic but instead gives the impression of a later accretion, such as with the assumption of Mary, or the veneration of images, or the papacy, or indulgences and the treasury of merit, or having 7 sacraments, or transubstantiation, or not distributing the Lord's Supper in both kinds, or not translating the Scripture into the vernacular, or priestly celibacy, and so forth. On some of these topics, though not all, we find agreement with the Orthodox.
@@TruthUnites It was discussed in this video in terms of doing masses for the dead, which is one way of praying for the dead -- and you had a problem with it, even though St. Augustine clearly didn't. Lutherans have not historically objected to prayers for the dead, and the Anglicans eventually allowed it. Evangelicals, however, have consistently been opposed to it on the whole.
@@fr.johnwhiteford6194 I was discussing masses for the dead; this is not the same as prayers for the dead. There are also different kinds of masses for the dead; masses as propitiatory sacrifices on their behalf are different from those done in commemoration of them. This is what distinguishes some patristic practice from the later medieval context that the Reformers were responding to. I would respectfully disagree that evangelicals have "consistently" opposed it; many Anglicans, Lutherans, and Methodists, for example, *are* evangelicals. John Wesley, for instance, held it as a duty to pray for the dead, and his influence among evangelicals is vast.
@@TruthUnites What is your source for asserting different kinds of masses for the dead. We commemorate the dead at every Liturgy, just as Christians have always done, but there are some Liturgies in which prayers for the dead are more especially emphasized. However, there is nothing fundamentally different. Perhaps Roman Catholics make such a distinction, but I have never seen such a distinction laid out anywhere. And as a former Wesleyan I can tell you that the fact that John Wesley said or did something has no necessary connection with what his followers have taught and done. John Wesley also read the Fathers of the Church. His followers mostly stopped at reading John Wesley... if that.
@@fr.johnwhiteford6194 I don't think I care to get into another lengthy back-and-forth, but you can see the fuller video if you want further discussion of masses as propitiatory sacrifices for the dead. Its in response to an anathema given at the Council of Trent. Propitiatory sacrifices for the dead involve reduced sentences in purgatory through the extinguishing of temporal punishment. This is in the Western context and does not directly concern Orthodoxy. Wesleyans don't always read Wesley, of course. Orthodox Christians don't always read Orthodox sources, so there is no need for disparaging comments about Wesleyans. The point is your "consistently" adverb is an overstatement. I am happy I could address your question about prayers for the dead, but probably won't respond further.
It CANNOT be a sacrifice. Those reformers needed a bit of reformation! We shouldn't even entertain the idea that a priest (not an office in the New Testament, except for the priesthood of all believers) can offer up the bread and wine as a sacrifice. It too easily leads to such incredible idolatry and even blasphemy.
@geoffjs How are you establishing that doctrine from that text?! Bishops are a perfectly biblical office, as are deacons, and there are texts which establish this. (see 1 Tim 3, Titus 1) But as far as a priesthood is concerned, in the New Covenant there is now the Melchizedek Priesthood, of which Jesus is the sole office holder-- or at least, He is the High Priest of the new order. After that, ALL WE who are believers, are the new priesthood under our High Priest, Jesus. Hebrews 7:11-28 1 Peter 2:4-9
@@thinkerj The Holy Mass is an unbloody REPRESENTATION of Calvary with the priest, in persona Christi acting as both priest offering up himself as sacrifice to the father
@@geoffjs There are no priests in the New Covenant, apart from the universal priesthood of believers. It makes no theological sense to "represent" the sacrifice of Christ unless you believe that our sins were not actually carried onto the cross and removed once and for all. Which would make a mockery of the crucifixion of Christ.
Did Luther call Eucharist as sacrifice as Dr. Ortlund said in the beginning? The following is what Luther wrote: Where is it written, that the mass is a sacrifice, or where has Christ taught that one should offer consecrated bread and wine to God? Do you not hear? Christ has sacrificed himself once [Heb. 7:27; 9:25-26]; henceforth he will not be sacrificed by anyone else. He wishes us to remember his sacrifice. Why are you then so bold as to make a sacrifice out of this remembrance? Is it possible that you are so foolish as to act upon your own devices, without any scriptural authority? (Luther: The Misuse of the Mass, English translation from Luther's Works, Vol. 36, pp. 136-137) I have consoled those whose consciences are weak and have instructed them so that they may know and recognize that there is no sacrifice in the New Testament other than the sacrifice of the cross [Heb. 10:10] and the sacrifice of praise [Heb. 13:15] which are mentioned in the Scriptures; so that no one any longer has cause to doubt that the mass is not a sacrifice. (ibid, p. 192) On the same subject John Calvin wrote: But to what tends the mass which has been established, that a hundred thousand sacrifices may be performed every day, but just to bury and suppress the passion of our Lord, in which he offered himself to his Father as the only victim? Who but a blind man does not see that it was Satanic audacity to oppose a truth so clear and transparent? (Inst. 3.18.3)
@@HisLivingStone241 If you watch the video at the very beginning Dr. Ortlund stated that Luther called the Eucharist as sacrifice. In my response I pointed out that Luther did not consider it as sacrifice.
@@justfromcatholic that does not address the fact that Luther and Gavin are using the term ''sacrifice'' in different ways, as Gavin also says that you have to be careful in how you use the term ''sacrifice''.
@@justfromcatholic Luther is referring to transubstantiation which teaches that Christ is present in the bread and wine via body and blood and is re-offered in an unbloody propitiary sacrifice (since the bread and wine still taste like bread and wine) while Gavin is referencing to Spirtiual Presence which is about the sanctifying work on the soul that takes place as you praise God for His work and yet remember the great sacrifice that it was. Thus, Luther reference to sacrifice is different from what Gavin references.
Protestants are not leaving their roots behind when rejecting the concept of the commemoration not being a sacrifice. There were always Protestant writers who argued against that concept. They were called Sacramentarians. The problem with this debate is that one way or the other you end up denying the efficacy of Faith Alone. One thing is to say that the sacraments strengthen your faith, which is different from saying that they generate faith, or save us.
There’s so much disconnect from the Jewish roots of Christianity with so many of these issues. It’s much more important to understand how Peter and Paul understood these things as Jews than how some historical church figures understood these things. You can’t talk about the Lords Supper without talking about Passover.
Definitely it seems a real blocker to ultimate ecumenical unity with Roman Catholicism is their ecclesiology namely, their idea of infallibility of the Pope ex cathedra and the councils. It really puts them in a corner not allowing for doctrinal development or correction, as you've noted elsewhere. Otherwise, I think we could agree on a definition of "sacrifice" in regards to the eucharist.
@@geoffjs Not historical Protestantism, people like Martin Luther did believe in real presence. Dr. Ortlund actually has good videos on this, would suggest checking out. Though I would agree that much of modern Protestantism lacks real presence belief.
@@SaltyApologist spiritual simple means it is done by the grace of the Holy Spirit, not that is not real matter as being the real deyficated flesh and blood of Lord God almighty Jesus Christ
So, I have a problem with application language as well, although I suppose it depends on how you cash out the term. To me, this term indicates the need for reapplying the effects of the cross to the believer. The believer needs to be regenerated again, forgiveness needs to be granted again, and Christ becomes out representative again. Such things are lost and to be applied again. How does this not compromise our unity with Christ and justification by faith? Reaffirmation I can get behind, but not application.
reapplication is standard language for ongoing forgiveness. It's how Protestants regularly speak of the effects of Christ's intercession, e.g. (Heb. 7:25). WE have been forgiven, but we need that forgiveness to be reapplied when we sin. Does that help?
@@TruthUnites I do not think so. Here are my thoughts. Because Christ has become our righteousness recapitulation style (2 Cor 5:20) and offered his body as payment and propitiation for our sins once and for all PSA style (Rom 3:25, Heb 10:10-14), the believer never stands in a state of needed forgiveness again. He has forever perfected those who are being sanctified, because we are in Him (Eph 1:7). As we sin, the blood is already applied, and his perfect life already covers our fault. Otherwise, we must say that the believer who sinned and died before eating the Eucharist and confessing is in a state of condemnation because the sacrifice was not reapplied.
@@jordanvelazco6408 how would you reconcile that with David's prayer in Psalm 32, or HEbrews 10:22? It seems to me that many biblical passages speak of believers having forgiveness applied to them.
@@TruthUnites the passive participles in Heb 10:22 are in the perfect tense, indicating a prior action that has a lasting effect, not a repeated or ongoing cleansing. In context (10:10-14, 20), I believe the best candidate for that is the cleansing that happens at conversion. Referencing Ps. 32 is shaky specifically because it is under the Old Covenant. It is a feature of the New Covenant that guards the believer from becoming guilty and needing forgiveness granted again, as Heb 10: 15-18 points out. But allow me to push the question, Under your idea of reapplication, if the believer dies before he confesses his sin or takes communion, is he condemned or his sin unforgiven?
I think you hit something very important here, and it's also what I believe. Or at the least it's the most sensible option. I'm not saying that sins I have yet to commit are already forgiven, yet the propitiation is already made on my behalf once for all. And that the sins will be forgiven, yet if I continue on in sin, then there would be no propitiation left for me.
UA-cam is being weird. I cannot see most of the replies. Hope it gets corrected soon. I love the short video excerpts. Very helpful as a reminder to important points.
Why did God instruct the Jews to meticulously adhere to procedures for consuming their Passover lamb? The blood of the lamb saved the israelites who complied to smear them on their doorpost... Did not John the Baptist introduce Jesus as the lamb of God? God sent His Son to be a sacrificial victim to redeem mankind. If so, should we not consume His body as Jesus Himself commanded during His last supper? Jesus chose to Institute the Holy Eucharist before He willingly led to be crucified. "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will not have eternal life.... " Jesus being divine transcends time and space. Sacrifice to the higher power from time of old is followed by a meal. Hence Eucharistic ritual known as Holy Mass is a sacrifice.
Protestantism denies this reality Jn 6 51-58, so no church. They either ignore or are ignorant of Mal 1:11. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is offered daily in all places at all times as commanded by Jesus. Daily bread in the Lord’s Prayer, in the original language refers to supernatural natural bread ie the Eucharist. Read the Early Fathers
@@geoffjs Christians in general believe that Jesus' passion & death by crucifixion on the cross is a sacrifice. His death on the cross is the fulfilment of God's promise to save mankind in appointed time. His death is a one time blood sacrifice for salvation of mankind. His sacrifice is a mystery for non believers. Perhaps it would have been easier to reason and understand if Jesus would have instituted the last supper after His resurrection. But why did Jesus choose to have the last supper before his passion. Why only with His chosen apostles, not even His mother. Knowing fully well that His appointed time has come for carrying out His mission.. Death on the cross, He spoke the last words to His Apostles and showed them in action. His words/teachings are plain and not figures of speech, metaphor. For is there anyone who would call his/her closest relatives/ friends before death to entertain them with figues of speech? He instituted Eucharist.. "This is my body... This is my blood which will be poured out for you.. Do this (bloodless sacrifice) in memory of me". This mystery was further revealed post resurrection for two of his disciples at Emmaus. He broke the bread.. and vanished from their sight.. In Catholic Church, to call Mass as the sacrifice, and concecrated bread and wine as Jesus Body & Blood, requires valid ordained priesthood, sacred liturgy, altar, Bread and wine etc. Eucharistic miracles are divine proofs & revealations that uses to affirm our faith in the doctrine of Transubstantiation. 'Senses can not grasp this marvel, faith must serve to compensate'- Tantum ergo. God knows well that since He created mankind as mortal and spiritual being, we needed to have both physical food and spiritual food for continuing and sustaining in our physical & spiritual journey.
I’m not a theologian, I’m just an engineer and even I can see that the Eucharist is a sacrifice. If you spent thousands of dollars on a theology degree and you don’t understand that basic fact, you might want to ask for your money back!
John Chrysostom, Homilies on Hebrews, Homily 17, 6: What then? Do not we offer every day? We offer indeed, but making a remembrance of His death, and this [remembrance] is one and not many. How is it one, and not many? Inasmuch as that [Sacrifice] was once for all offered, [and] carried into the Holy of Holies. This is a figure of that [sacrifice] and this remembrance of that. (...) He is our High Priest, who offered the sacrifice that cleanses us. That we offer now also, which was then offered, which cannot be exhausted. This is done in remembrance of what was then done. For (says He) "do this in remembrance of Me." Luke 22:19 It is not another sacrifice, as the High Priest, but we offer always the same, or rather we perform a remembrance of a Sacrifice.
I'm really curious if you have a take on the common work of Pope Benedict XVI and Wolfhart Pannenberg. In essence they realised we can both agree that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, in that, for Protestants, or of Lutherans at least. This is a sacrifice of joy (hence the semantics of Eucharist), just like the Old Testament describes sacrifices of flour, for joy, not propitiatory. And Pannenberg argued, while Christ sacrificed himself once and for all, we participate in that sacrifice by eating! In other words, we can agree with the Catholics on a functional perspective because our participation brings nothing to the sacrifice itself! But as a sacrament, we participate in the sacrifice by receiving the benefits of it, i.e. eating! ("Take and eat, this is my body [...]")
The early Church Fathers taught prayers for the dead, and masses for the dead, those suffering temporary punishments after death, are aided by the prayers and masses and sacrifices for them. Dr. Ortlund conveniently leaves out these complete writings of the Church Fathers he doesn't like! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Repeating yourself does not equate to you actually saying something, especially when Gavin responded to you and asked for you to provide the evidence that you've said you have "brought up and yet he's refused to answer". I quote Gavin, the one you talk about but have not answered in about 22 hours since he asked (which you wouldn't take that long to try to say something to guys like TharMan9 or me, maybe 2 hours max). Gavin: "Matthew, I am aware of Eucharistic celebrations as commemorations for the dead in the patristic era, but where did church fathers commend them as propitiatory sacrifices for the dead?". Matthew's response: [crickets]
@@HisLivingStone241 I totally agree, The repetitive false teachings of Gavin Ortlund Doesn't make them true! I provided evidence from the early Church Fathers who prayed for the dead and offered the sacrifice of the liturgy for souls after death undergoing temporary punishments. Gavin never responded as usual! Have you no reading glasses? You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
The Eucharist means "Thanksgiving". The sacrifice of thanksgiving was the peace offering in the Old Testament. The peace offering was to thank God for something that was already accomplished in the past. The peace offering has nothing to do with a propitiatory sacrifice / a sacrifice related to forgiveness of sins or participating in the death of Christ on the Cross. It's a way to say thank you God for what Jesus did on the Cross. I just made a video about this on my channel. I think mixing it in with the death of Christ on the Cross diminishes the finished work of Christ on the Cross and leads to confusion, making people think they need to take the Eucharist to have their sins forgiven.
Trent makes it quite clear that the Eucharist is itself a separate and distinct oblation from that of the Cross…and that it is-in its own right-propitiatory. So the common modern Catholic talking point of its being a “re-presentation” is inaccurate.
@robertcampbell1343. Sorry, I wasn’t notified of this request. Here it is (from the 22nd Session of Trent on the Sacrifice of the Mass): Canon 3. “If anyone says that the sacrifice of the mass is one only of praise and thanksgiving; or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory one…let him be anathema.” Now, “Praise & Thanksgiving” and “Commemoration” are not the only other possible options. An actual “re-presentation” would be another, as would an “application” or a “distribution.” If Christ is sacrificed once for all, then only the original sacrifice can be propitiatory. Trent seems to want to have its cake and eat it, too. They want to make the unbloody “sacrifice” as propitiatory without derogating from Christ’s one and only sacrifice. How is that even logically possible? I cannot see how.
@robertcampbell1343. It would kind of like giving someone a patent or a copyright, but allowing others to use it without payment or permission. A patent is only valuable if it’s unique and non-transferable. Besides, what’s the point of calling the unbloody sacrifice propitiatory? How is that superior to calling it a re-presentation of the (uniquely) propitiatory sacrifice offered on the cross?
It is false, erroneous, and dangerous to say that the "...once-for-all event (of Christ's atonement on the cross) is somehow applied or extended into the recipient in the actual moment of reception." Chemnitz went too far! This idea of Chemnitz sets up a framework wherein people look to the eating as salvific; they trust the *good work* of ingesting God rather than trust simply in Christ by faith. Their faith is transferred from Christ on the cross to Christ in the Eucharist. This is how the RCC holds its members captive: they teach that only the RC priest can confect the true Sacrament, that only the RC priest can summon Christ bodily from heaven to take His place upon the sacrificial altar. This error is precisely where Chemnitz's idea inevitably leads, and he was too blind to see it; but we should not fault him, since the influence of RC theology & doctrine so powerfully permeated the culture back then, and the fledgling Lutheran Christians were still taking 'baby steps' in some regards. Gavin, I think you are trying too hard to be ecumenical, for you are compromising the Biblical viewpoint of Christ's promise (that every one who believes in Him will receive eternal life) when you essentially open the door to a concept of receiving eternal life through a physical ingestion of bread and wine. Christ's sacrifice *is NOT applied* by the partaking of the Sacrament, it is *represented and replayed* in the sense that a TV news report might replay a past event with a recorded clip. Your (and Chemnitz's) line of thinking shows exactly why some Protestant branches overreact by holding to a mere memorialist/symbolic view of the sacrament; they fear that people will be sucked back into an error that compromises the Gospel of faith in Christ alone!
@@geoffjs Understanding the import of this one passage in John really is crucial. For *if Jesus literally intends that our salvation hinge upon the actual ingestion of His physical flesh, blood, soul, and divinity (the fullness of Jesus),* then all of the Protestant followers of Jesus Christ are going straight to hell just for that one failure. (Anyone who receives communion as a memorial and symbol of Christ, certainly. And probably the same for those who believe they partake of Christ in the Eucharist in a spiritual sense only.) If this is the case, then faith in Jesus Christ is really nothing without the eating of Christ; trusting in Jesus' propitiation, living a sanctified life, and _even water baptism_ would be _for naught, if_ one does not consume the transubstantiated, Roman Catholic communion. This is a very serious matter! We dare not treat it lightly. I know this is hard for a Catholic to hear (as it was for me at first), but the context of John 6 *in its entirety* does not support a literal interpretation of verses 53-56. Plain and simple, it doesn't. I suggest that you read the full chapter every day for the next month and meditate upon it each day. Let the written word of God speak to you. As you read, I hope you will ask yourself some questions: 1. If physical ingestion of God the Son is really the key to eternal life, why is this one instance the only time we read of it in the entire Bible? Why is 'eating Jesus' never mentioned in the salvation passages John 3:14-18; John 6:28-29,40,47; Mark 16:16; Romans 4; Romans 10:9-10; Galatians 3; Ephesians 2:8-9; etc.? 2. Why did these people follow Him across the lake? Are they disciples, or are they hard-hearted skeptics? 3. What is the main point Jesus tries to convince them of? What is the thing Jesus keeps repeating, starting with verse 29? (see also v. 35, 40, 47). 4. Was Jesus conducting a teaching session on the subject of the Eucharist? (Note: this was a full year before the Last Supper took place.) 5. When Jesus said, "I am bread," was this meant to be literal or was He likening HImself to the O.T. manna? If the former, did Jesus transform Himself into a loaf of baked bread? Isn't "I am bread" the exact opposite of turning bread into flesh? If verse 53 is to be read in a literal sense, shouldn't "I am bread" also be read in a literal sense? Since Jesus did not transform Himself into a loaf of barley bread, He was speaking metaphorically, so shouldn't we read verses 53-56 in the same manner: metaphorically? 6. When Jesus said those things about eating His flesh (v. 53-56), the disciples didn't understand what he meant; so when they were apart from the crowd, Jesus *explained (in verse 63) what He meant. Why is verse 63 trivialized by Catholics? Why is Jesus' explanation (v. 63) not considered to be _the key to understanding the meaning_ of Jesus' most difficult statement? If "the flesh counts for nothing," how can eating Jesus' flesh in a literal sense count for the most important thing: eternal life? If Jesus' words in verses 53-56 were "spirit and life," shouldn't we take them in a spiritual sense and not a literal one? It is a plain fact that NO early church writing specifically states that the substances of bread and wine cease to exist and that they become the physical flesh and physical blood of Jesus (i.e., Transubstantiation). Roman Catholics are _required_ to believe this (even though a recent survey shows that one-half of them take a memorialist view, a view which the RCC anathematizes). But I can show you a number of early fathers who specifically stated that the substances of bread and wine _remain as bread and wine_ (i.e., Transubstantiation does not take place). Pope Gelasius so stated at the end of the 5th Century: “The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine do not cease. And assuredly the image and similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries” (Adversus Eutychen et Nestorium, 14). Do you understand what a "similitude" is? It's a similarity, a representation, an allegory. Now, I will explain why you should have respect for the Protestant view of Communion. Since Protestants believe what Gelasius, Augustine, and other early churchmen said about it, we Protestants understand that the host is still bread. Some Protestants believe Christ is Really Present in a spiritual manner, while others think He is only represented and memorialized in a symbolic manner, but either way *the host continues to be bread; therefore we cannot in good conscience adore and worship the host, because doing so would be idolatry.* Here is how we Protestants view the issue: _The Israelites created a calf of gold, declared it to be Almighty God, and worshiped it._ As punishment, Moses had the calf ground up and made the people ingest the gold. _The Roman Catholics create wafers of bread, declare them to be Almighty God, rear them up in monstrances and worship them._ Then they ingest the bread. Can you see why we Protestants cannot condone Transubstantiation and why we think it is evil? Remember also that Jesus never said at the Last Supper, Do this to get saving grace from Me. He never said, Do this while believing that I am Really Present in the Eucharist elements. What did He say? "Do this _in remembrance_ of Me." Protestants obey Jesus when they take communion in remembrance of Him, and Catholics should respect that. After all, official RC doctrine says that the Protestants are 'daughters of Mother Church'. 😉
Isn't this quite against the Baptist "memorial" view? As a Presbyterian, I can claim the Spiritual presence and sacramentally receive the grace. The Baptist view is "ordinance".
@@TruthUnites Sometimes, you seemed like a traditional Reformed Baptist. I think you are somewhat unique among Baptists. You seem to fall between Presbyterian and Baptist. Regardless, I am learning quite a bit.
The problem with the reformed view, and I say this as a protestant, is this. Christ is present in the eucharist. The eucharist is a sacrifice. It is a different sacrifice than the one Christ offered on the cross. Meaning Christ is offered within the elements as a different sacrifice from the one sacrifice that He offered before the Father. So the reformed view causes Christ to be offered in multiple sacrifices. Whereas the Catholic view necessitates that since Christ is present in the sacrifice of the eucharist that is offered, and Christ's sacrifice was once and for all, it must be that same singular sacrifice that is brought present in the eucharist. As opposed to a different kind of sacrifice. He cannot be offered in multiple sacrifices.
Also, the Catholic view is very simple. Christ's sacrifice is made present in the eucharist. That's why they say re-presenting that sacrifice. It is made re-present. That's how the Catechism of the Catholic Church even renders this.
My best example that uses the exact same BIBLICAL language is a FLAG 1. A flag preaches a nation and it's constitution 2. The US flag is a reliving of 1776 in the pledge of allegiance 3. The flag is a legal body when an official flag is desecrated as an act of war or treason. 4. A legal memorial is enforced, not simply a mere memorial, this is more obvious in the military. (This is why demons would be required to legally respect the "host" not because it's an actual transubstantiation, but because it's a legal transubstantiation, BTW I don't like the word transubstantiation, it's ambiguous). 5. The authority to consecrate is in the act of representation, while we would prefer a flag made official by the Congress (kehilim or Knesset) a citizen can establish a legal flag in a territory for the purpose of an embassy this is sanctuary under a flag. 6. Making a flag legal requires respect to the rights and duties it represents 7. The flag must be available to all citizens
A memorialist view is a very mundane and easy teaching. But the disciples believed that holy communion was a very hard teaching ' On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" '
@@LoseBellyFatNow0 I’m not convinced that the Bread of Life discourse in John 6 has anything at all to do with the Last Supper or Communion. Totally separate.
@@LoseBellyFatNow0 It surprises me that so many people seem to think that the difficulty in John 6 stems from a literal understanding of "flesh and blood" and not the claim of Jesus to be the one who has "come down from heaven." In fact, the entire passage seems to be a protracted explanation of and rebuke against the unbelief of the crowd that followed Him. The difference between those who stayed and those who leave (giving us a clue as to what the "hard saying" was really all about) is that those who stay are the ones who believe that Jesus is "the Holy One of God." In fact, if one reads the passage, it can be seen that the entire discussion of bread, hunger/thirst, food/drink, etc. is simply Jesus' way of taking their demand for another sign and turning it against them: "So they said to him, “Then what sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform? Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” (Jn 6:30-31) Jesus replies: “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe." (Jn. 6:35-36) Notice, according to Jesus, the "eating" that will sate our hunger is coming to Him, and it is our belief in Him that is the "drinking" that quenches our thirst. To interpret eating and drinking, hunger and thirst, flesh and blood, bread and drink hyper-literally is to simply miss the actual point Jesus is trying to make, which is summed up in vss 43-47: "Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me-not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life." (Jn.6:43-47)
I think it is a categorical mistake to assume that Roman Catholics and Evangelicals are really saying the same thing here. An application of a historical sacrifice through faith is not a sacrifice. When we confess our sins to God we are applying his sacrifice but he is not being sacrificed. The Reformers saw the eucharist as a sacrifice insofar as it is a thanksgiving (eucharistia in Greek means "thanksgiving" and the psalms often speak of offering a "sacrifice of thanksgiving" or "praise"). There are other ways that an Evangelical can refer to the eucharist as a "sacrifice" (see Chemnitz) but not because Christ is really sacrificed.
........you do realize that Jesus fulfilled passover, right? Why is that relevant.... pause and think before answering because you might realize the video *does address passover and other rituals that take away from the sufficiency of Christ.*
@Elisabet Zamora Incorrect. Passover was a ritual for sacrifice. If you believe he fulfilled the final sacrifice, passover is no longer valid. Christ fulfilled the Law meaning we don't have to do all the rituals to be with him, just as it was pre-sin.
The more I listen to this dialogue the more I get convinced to remain Catholic. Protestantism for me is just: do you believe this is a sacrifice? yes? that is fine, do you believe it isnt a sacrifice? No? that is fine too... and that is pretty much protestantism in a nutshell. Every is a possibility... it is up to you to decide...
The early Church Fathers taught prayers for the dead and masses for the dead, gave aid to those suffering temporary punishments after death! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Matthew, I am aware of Eucharistic celebrations as commemorations for the dead in the patristic era, but where did church fathers commend them as propitiatory sacrifices for the dead?
@@TruthUnites as Christ died for the living and for the dead, because He went to Hades to free the souls of the just, the Eucharist is also an offering for the living AND for the dead.
Depends on the religion…the Romanish doctrine it clearly is, for Protestants No it is not. Do not undo the finality of the cross, also salvation is not dependent on taking part, we do this in remembrance of what Christ did for us….we do this to remember we have been washed and sanctified by the Holy Spirit, there is nothing we can do to earn this forgiveness. Treating this as a sacrifice is saying what Christ did was not enough and therefore is why the romish doctrine is rejected. It is no longer an alter but a table, we do not hold up the elements to be changed into his flesh and blood, Christ will return one day but not like this.
@@geoffjs clearly it is not clear otherwise wars and reformations would not have occurred. keep reading especially until John 6 verse 63. This is why Christians do not follow the Romish teachings. Read also the feeding miracle before, (and cross reference with other gospels also) and you see in the feeding of the thousands Jesus is not interested in physical needs but spiritual needs…this passage in John you quote has no reference to the communion or last supper hence the historical split between Roman Catholic interpretation and the interpretation of the Holy catholic Church, aka the elect, or reformed theology.
@@Bruised-Reedyou prove the dishonesty or selectiveness of Protestantism. Jn 6 51-58 was the Last Supper. Read 1 Cor 10 16-17 and other texts. If you still disagree read the Early Fathers and finally research Eucharistic miracles than science can’t explain. You didn’t comment on Mal 1:11 Without sacrificial worship, Protestantism has no church and proves it sterility to say nothing about the lack of unity Jn 17:21 and its heretical nature To preempt the inevitable knee jerk reaction, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the unbloody REPRESENTATION of Calvary enacted at Jesus’ command every day in all places and at all times. The words daily bread in the Lord’s Prayer, in their original language refer to supernatural bread ie the Eucharist, but Protestants prefer the heresy of personal interpretation
Did you know if you say your name like 7 times in a row you will hear the theme from the pink panther. Dad da...dad da ...dad da, dad da, dad da , dad da, dad daaaaaaa, dad da da da da . Also Catholics are Christians
"It does not matter what theologians tell you today, it's what the Saints say. We follow the Holy Fathers and the Saints! We do not follow Professor so and so and Doctor so and so. That's not the authority in the [Orthodox] Church." Fr Peter Heers Interesting discussion tho between those in the west
The Eucharist is openly showing the emptiness of the Protestant religion … but u guys the prots want to take up the Eucharist also… but u don’t want to come to the Catholic Church… this is bizarre .. no humility but a lot of intelligence for absolutely nothing …
The prots have turned their justification doctrine to the same as catholics … because they couldn’t sell their empty doctrine for long … but if asked they will come up with some technical nonsense by so called intellectuals like MacArthur …
I think there is no point in what Gavin does… what he does is simple , how can I get close enough to the ideas of the church because the fathers betray the fact that Protestantism was not the original church, no visible oneness , no obedience , no sacrifice , no table / altar , no presence of Christ with his bride …: the fathers will show u in a minute that Protestantism is false.. Gavin wants to clone the church without the humility and obedience which are needed to stay in the church … u can never be the body of Christ if u don’t have the one thing that signifies Christ , humility..
The very fact that he quotes some prot scholars on Eucharist is like me quoting my mother who wrote a poem to explain what poems are and the grammar of them , when u have Shakespeare and Wordsworth and Blake to explain … this idea of my nanny writes great poetry is absolute bull crap …
Dr. Ortlund is in a bind, as Scripture ALONE is infallible, and no interpretation of any Protestant can therefore be infallible too! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@gardyloogubbins I have, as many Protestant Pastors claim that without a doubt. " this is My Body ", is not to be taken any way, except as a symbol or a spiritual presence, but definitely not bread into MY BODY. Many also teach without a doubt, the woman in Revelation 12, is not Mary! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 “Without a doubt” and “With infallible certainty” are not the same thing. An example: I have no doubts that I am my parents biological child. All evidence points that way: I look like them, I have a birth certificate, etc. But am I infallibly certain? No. I could have been adopted, documents could have been forged, I could have been switched at birth. But, my inability to be infallibly certain doesn’t mean that I doubt my parentage. I believe I have true knowledge of the fact, even if it is not infallible knowledge. In fact, I would go so far as to say that no one, save God Himself, can be said to possess infallible certainty.
That argumentation has already been debunked simply by way of your refusal to articulate the terms of your own argument. In the last two videos: ua-cam.com/video/CTb7V3Fk73w/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/Ft4p2h6fTOM/v-deo.html
@@HisLivingStone241 Actually it has never ever been debunked! Inseed, Scripture ALONE is a man made tradition. Plus, no Protestant Pastor actually practices Scripture ALONE, as they place their own fallible interpretations above the infallible Holy Scriptures! Again, since Dr. Ortlund doesn't know the answer, you can try, "can anyone know with infallible certitude what Jesus Christ meant by "this IS MY BODY ", and who the Woman is in Revelation 12? You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
When you eat this bread...and drink this cup...you proclaimed the death (sacrifice) of the Lord...the drama epic of God's love to enable humanity (after Christ'ascension) to participate in the Calvary of God
Very helpful! Your an excellent communicator Dr. Ortlund and thanks for helping to make these discussions much more understandable.
Dr. Ortlund, once again, thank you so much for your work as a scholar on these areas.
The more I try to apprehend how much research a single subject alone takes, the more I genuinely appreciate how well read you are on these matters.
You serve as such a helpful introduction and guide to those of us who feel lost in our attempts at Protestant retrieval.
You have very quickly become one of my favorite pastor-scholars. Once again, thank you!!
Is the Catholic Church Jesus’ original church?
The quotes provided below are historical facts in reference to our early church which existed prior to Romes adoption of Christianity in 313 A.D.
Church:
* "Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” [St. Ignatius of Antioch - Letter to the Smyrneans 8 (c. A.D. 110)]
Bishop, Priest & Deacon:
* “Since, then, I have had the privilege of seeing you, through Damas your most worthy bishop, and through your worthy presbyters Bassus and Apollonius, and through my fellow-servant the deacon Sotio, whose friendship may I ever enjoy, because he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ [St. Ignatius of Antioch- Letter to the Magnesians 2 (c. A.D. 110)].
Eucharist:
* “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ, which have 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, Ash that suffered for our sins and that the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.” [St. Ignatius of Antioch - Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6-7 (c. A.D. 110)].
Scripture:
* “[W]hoever perverts the sayings of the Lord for his own desires, and says that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, is the firstborn of Satan. Let us leave the foolishness and the false teaching of the crowd and turn back to the word that was delivered to us in the beginning.” [St. Polycrap of Smyrna - Letter to the Philippians 7 (c. A.D. 135)].
Sunday:
* “But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead.” [St. Justin Martyr - First Apology 67 (c. A.D. 151)].
Actions/Works:
* “We have learned from the prophets, and we believe it is true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man's actions. If it is not so, then all things happen by fate, and nothing is in our own power. If it is fated that this man be good, and this other evil, the former is not meritorious nor the latter blameworthy [St. Justin Martyr - First Apology 43 (c. A.D. 151)].
Apostolic Succession:
* “It is within the power of all, in every church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the Tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were instituted bishops in the churches by the apostles, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew anything these [heretics] rave about.” [St. Irenaeus of Lyons - Against Heresies 3:3:1 (c. A.D. 189)]
Baptism:
* “The children shall be baptized first. All the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family.” [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 21 (c. A.D. 215)].
Confession:
* “After this, one of the bishops present, at the request of all, laying his hand on him who is ordained bishop, shall pray this way: O God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. pour forth the power that is from you, of "the princely Spirit' that you delivered to your beloved Child, Jesus Christ, and that he bestowed on your holy apostles, who established the Church that hallows you everywhere, for the endless glory and praise of your name. Father, "who knows the hearts [of all]” grant this servant, who you have chosen for the episcopate, to feed your holy flock and serve as your high priest blamelessly night and day, and unceasingly turn away wrath from your face and offer to you the gifts of the holy Church. And that by the high priestly Spirit he may have authority "to forgive sins" according to your command.” [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 2-3 (c. A.D. 215)].
Confirmation:
* “The bishop will then lay his hand upon them, invoking, "Lord God, you who have made these worthy of the removal of sins through the bath of regeneration, make them worthy to be filled with your Holy Spirit, grant to them your grace, that they might serve you according to your will, for to you is the glory, Father and Son with the Holy Spirit, in the holy Church, now and throughout the ages of the ages. Amen." After this he pours the oil into his hand, and laying his hand on each of their heads, says, "I anoint you with holy oil in God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus, and the Holy Spirit." Then, after sealing each of them on the forehead, he shall give them the kiss of peace and say, "The Lord be with you." And the one who has been baptized shall say, "And with your spirit." So shall he do to each one [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 21-22 (c. A.D. 215).
Peter’s Authority:
* “The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you,' he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. [Mt 16:18-19]. On him he builds the Church, and commands him to feed the sheep [Jn 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed the others were also what Peter was [apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, by which it is made clear that there is one Church and one chair.... If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he be confident that he is in the Church?.” [St. Cyprian of Carthage - Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition (Treatise 1:4) (A.D. 251)].
These few topics (but a glimpse) were not only discussed but settled BEFORE Rome adopted Christianity (The Catholic Church) and eventually became The Roman Catholic Church as it also adopted its name after 313 A.D.
Is the Catholic Church Jesus’ original church? Yes!
Does this excuse all its mistakes and sins from the record? Of course not! As Christians, we are called to hold the church accountable, not leave it and let evil flourish within it.
This refusal of accountability within every Christian has led to over 40,000 diferente Christian churches and the ignorance which has flourished from it.
“This will continue until we all come to such unity in our faith and knowledge of God’s Son that we will be mature in the Lord, measuring up to the full and complete standard of Christ. Then we will no longer be immature like children. We won’t be tossed and blown about by every wind of new teaching. We will not be influenced when people try to trick us with lies so clever they sound like the truth. Instead, we will speak the truth in love, growing in every way more and more like Christ, who is the head of his body, the church.” Ephesians 4:13-15
We are called by God to unite! What better church to do it under than the one he started.
@@Antonio.R.O.C. your spam isn't helpful.
Agreed. He does display genuine love and care.
@@Antonio.R.O.C. spamming is a no-go my friend
thanks a lot Roger, so glad my work is useful for you!
The work on the cross was once and for all. ✝️
In Catholic theology (I'm not Roman Catholic) it's a re-presentation of that sacrafice. Also, why does the Bible when it says (in rememberance) use a word describing sacrifice?
www.christianbwagner.com/post/do-this-in-remembrance-of-me-probably-doesn-t-mean-what-you-think-it-means
Secondly if you read the church fathers that Dr. Ortlund likes to mention, you can see what they taught yourself. 😁
Indeed, and it makes no sense to say that the Lord's Supper is a re-presentation of the one and only sacrifice of Christ on the cross, because that indicates that He did not once and for all carry all our sins onto the cross. This, in turn, invites the nefarious idea that only those sins we explicitly confess will be forgiven and forgotten by God.
William Perkins (Puritan) has an excellent article on this, explaining in what ways the Mass is a sacrifice.
yes, I was just taking a look at it the other day! Perkins is great.
What's the name of it?
@@erpdl2 Reformed Catholic, I think.
@@barelyprotestant5365 thank you
As an orthodox Christian Christ was the new sacrifice and he fulfilled the prophecy. and now we partake in the tree of life both physically and spiritually. It’s an offering not a sacrifice. Instead of using blood sacrifices we offer out bread and wine and in turn he turns it into his body and blood.
Dr. Ortlund, this was timely, as always!
Even though I watched that entire interview and planned on watching it at least one more time, the concept of the Eucharist as a sacrifice has been playing over and again in my head for the last two days, and this short clip helped bring a little more clarity to the issue.
Here's a real dilemma though that I hope you can speak to in a video which no one is really talking about:
What happens when a pastor or congregant comes to the point that they genuinely now believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist?
What are they to do?
I realize that in some ways these are two separate questions, and need to be addressed a little differently, but it's a reality that can't really be ignored, especially if this is the only conviction they've changed their mind on and can't just become Lutheran or Catholic.
What is one to do? They have to pray a lot about these things, study the other foundational beliefs and history of the Christian groups, and in this process I expect that even if you don't 100% align with one group or another you align your values and faith primarily with one group over the other.
The Eucharist is a re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary, a unique event in space and time which also transcends space and time. It is God’s way of making present in the here and now a past reality, a powerful concept in the Semitic world but lost in translation into our Western culture and languages.
I like the statement by an RC priest that God is bound TO the sacraments (in other words, He always honours them) but He is not bound BY them (in other words, He can and does also operate outside them).
ONE sacrifice and ONE covenantal feast we partake of. It is available and efficacious for all the faithful throughout all the world and throughout all of time. It is akin to Jesus, in John 6, feeding 5,000 men with the boy’s one sacrifice of 5 loaves and 2 fish.
Is the Catholic Church Jesus’ original church?
The quotes provided below are historical facts in reference to our early church which existed prior to Romes adoption of Christianity in 313 A.D.
Church:
* "Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” [St. Ignatius of Antioch - Letter to the Smyrneans 8 (c. A.D. 110)]
Bishop, Priest & Deacon:
* “Since, then, I have had the privilege of seeing you, through Damas your most worthy bishop, and through your worthy presbyters Bassus and Apollonius, and through my fellow-servant the deacon Sotio, whose friendship may I ever enjoy, because he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ [St. Ignatius of Antioch- Letter to the Magnesians 2 (c. A.D. 110)].
Eucharist:
* “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ, which have 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, Ash that suffered for our sins and that the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.” [St. Ignatius of Antioch - Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6-7 (c. A.D. 110)].
Scripture:
* “[W]hoever perverts the sayings of the Lord for his own desires, and says that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, is the firstborn of Satan. Let us leave the foolishness and the false teaching of the crowd and turn back to the word that was delivered to us in the beginning.” [St. Polycrap of Smyrna - Letter to the Philippians 7 (c. A.D. 135)].
Sunday:
* “But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead.” [St. Justin Martyr - First Apology 67 (c. A.D. 151)].
Actions/Works:
* “We have learned from the prophets, and we believe it is true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man's actions. If it is not so, then all things happen by fate, and nothing is in our own power. If it is fated that this man be good, and this other evil, the former is not meritorious nor the latter blameworthy [St. Justin Martyr - First Apology 43 (c. A.D. 151)].
Apostolic Succession:
* “It is within the power of all, in every church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the Tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were instituted bishops in the churches by the apostles, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew anything these [heretics] rave about.” [St. Irenaeus of Lyons - Against Heresies 3:3:1 (c. A.D. 189)]
Baptism:
* “The children shall be baptized first. All the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family.” [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 21 (c. A.D. 215)].
Confession:
* “After this, one of the bishops present, at the request of all, laying his hand on him who is ordained bishop, shall pray this way: O God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. pour forth the power that is from you, of "the princely Spirit' that you delivered to your beloved Child, Jesus Christ, and that he bestowed on your holy apostles, who established the Church that hallows you everywhere, for the endless glory and praise of your name. Father, "who knows the hearts [of all]” grant this servant, who you have chosen for the episcopate, to feed your holy flock and serve as your high priest blamelessly night and day, and unceasingly turn away wrath from your face and offer to you the gifts of the holy Church. And that by the high priestly Spirit he may have authority "to forgive sins" according to your command.” [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 2-3 (c. A.D. 215)].
Confirmation:
* “The bishop will then lay his hand upon them, invoking, "Lord God, you who have made these worthy of the removal of sins through the bath of regeneration, make them worthy to be filled with your Holy Spirit, grant to them your grace, that they might serve you according to your will, for to you is the glory, Father and Son with the Holy Spirit, in the holy Church, now and throughout the ages of the ages. Amen." After this he pours the oil into his hand, and laying his hand on each of their heads, says, "I anoint you with holy oil in God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus, and the Holy Spirit." Then, after sealing each of them on the forehead, he shall give them the kiss of peace and say, "The Lord be with you." And the one who has been baptized shall say, "And with your spirit." So shall he do to each one [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 21-22 (c. A.D. 215).
Peter’s Authority:
* “The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you,' he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. [Mt 16:18-19]. On him he builds the Church, and commands him to feed the sheep [Jn 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed the others were also what Peter was [apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, by which it is made clear that there is one Church and one chair.... If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he be confident that he is in the Church?.” [St. Cyprian of Carthage - Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition (Treatise 1:4) (A.D. 251)].
These few topics (but a glimpse) were not only discussed but settled BEFORE Rome adopted Christianity (The Catholic Church) and eventually became The Roman Catholic Church as it also adopted its name after 313 A.D.
Is the Catholic Church Jesus’ original church? Yes!
Does this excuse all its mistakes and sins from the record? Of course not! As Christians, we are called to hold the church accountable, not leave it and let evil flourish within it.
This refusal of accountability within every Christian has led to over 40,000 diferente Christian churches and the ignorance which has flourished from it.
“This will continue until we all come to such unity in our faith and knowledge of God’s Son that we will be mature in the Lord, measuring up to the full and complete standard of Christ. Then we will no longer be immature like children. We won’t be tossed and blown about by every wind of new teaching. We will not be influenced when people try to trick us with lies so clever they sound like the truth. Instead, we will speak the truth in love, growing in every way more and more like Christ, who is the head of his body, the church.” Ephesians 4:13-15
We are called by God to unite! What better church to do it under than the one he started.
@@Antonio.R.O.C. stop spamming. Catholic Church isn't original. That's Roman Pagan Church propaganda.
@@sarahwieland based on what?
@@stephenjohnson9632 Scripture and actual true history.
Yes, one sacrifice one time. Not over and over repeatedly throughout history.
1 Corinthians 11:24-25
and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
Yes. It’s a remembrance, but there is also a real spiritual presence. It’s just not the Roman pagan re-sacrifice of Christ actual flesh and blood
@eucharistangel4662 you do realize that your argument doesn’t address my argument at all right? Jesus has one physical body and it is in Heaven. Jesus has 2 natures, the physical nature is not being re-sacrificed on altars all over the world and magically turning bread and wine into actual body and blood through the mystical, pagan magic of transubstantiation that only became a thing using Aristotelian metaphysics made popular by Aquinas….long, long, long after Christ. Real Presence is a real thing, it’s just not transubstantiation that developed over hundreds and hundreds of years after the apostles and is the lynchpin of the false gospel and unbiblical mass of Rome. Understand the incarnation and the human nature of Christ and this becomes much clearer for you. I’ll pray for you
Other than the moderator, this is great stuff!
The moderator isn’t so bad. You get at least 10 internet points for the hoodie. 😂
the moderator is great, except for his heretical talk of "conjointly" -- anathema!!
@@Tiredhike I'll take what I can get
@@TruthUnitesanathema
I liked hearing what Martin Chemnitz had to say about the Eucharist from 4:38-5:33. It’s a very helpful explanation, coming as it does from a highly respected Lutheran theologian, because I’m attending a Lutheran Church (LCMS) where I don’t always agree with their language about it.
Is the Catholic Church Jesus’ original church?
The quotes provided below are historical facts in reference to our early church which existed prior to Romes adoption of Christianity in 313 A.D.
Church:
* "Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” [St. Ignatius of Antioch - Letter to the Smyrneans 8 (c. A.D. 110)]
Bishop, Priest & Deacon:
* “Since, then, I have had the privilege of seeing you, through Damas your most worthy bishop, and through your worthy presbyters Bassus and Apollonius, and through my fellow-servant the deacon Sotio, whose friendship may I ever enjoy, because he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ [St. Ignatius of Antioch- Letter to the Magnesians 2 (c. A.D. 110)].
Eucharist:
* “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ, which have 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, Ash that suffered for our sins and that the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.” [St. Ignatius of Antioch - Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6-7 (c. A.D. 110)].
Scripture:
* “[W]hoever perverts the sayings of the Lord for his own desires, and says that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, is the firstborn of Satan. Let us leave the foolishness and the false teaching of the crowd and turn back to the word that was delivered to us in the beginning.” [St. Polycrap of Smyrna - Letter to the Philippians 7 (c. A.D. 135)].
Sunday:
* “But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead.” [St. Justin Martyr - First Apology 67 (c. A.D. 151)].
Actions/Works:
* “We have learned from the prophets, and we believe it is true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man's actions. If it is not so, then all things happen by fate, and nothing is in our own power. If it is fated that this man be good, and this other evil, the former is not meritorious nor the latter blameworthy [St. Justin Martyr - First Apology 43 (c. A.D. 151)].
Apostolic Succession:
* “It is within the power of all, in every church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the Tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were instituted bishops in the churches by the apostles, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew anything these [heretics] rave about.” [St. Irenaeus of Lyons - Against Heresies 3:3:1 (c. A.D. 189)]
Baptism:
* “The children shall be baptized first. All the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family.” [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 21 (c. A.D. 215)].
Confession:
* “After this, one of the bishops present, at the request of all, laying his hand on him who is ordained bishop, shall pray this way: O God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. pour forth the power that is from you, of "the princely Spirit' that you delivered to your beloved Child, Jesus Christ, and that he bestowed on your holy apostles, who established the Church that hallows you everywhere, for the endless glory and praise of your name. Father, "who knows the hearts [of all]” grant this servant, who you have chosen for the episcopate, to feed your holy flock and serve as your high priest blamelessly night and day, and unceasingly turn away wrath from your face and offer to you the gifts of the holy Church. And that by the high priestly Spirit he may have authority "to forgive sins" according to your command.” [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 2-3 (c. A.D. 215)].
Confirmation:
* “The bishop will then lay his hand upon them, invoking, "Lord God, you who have made these worthy of the removal of sins through the bath of regeneration, make them worthy to be filled with your Holy Spirit, grant to them your grace, that they might serve you according to your will, for to you is the glory, Father and Son with the Holy Spirit, in the holy Church, now and throughout the ages of the ages. Amen." After this he pours the oil into his hand, and laying his hand on each of their heads, says, "I anoint you with holy oil in God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus, and the Holy Spirit." Then, after sealing each of them on the forehead, he shall give them the kiss of peace and say, "The Lord be with you." And the one who has been baptized shall say, "And with your spirit." So shall he do to each one [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 21-22 (c. A.D. 215).
Peter’s Authority:
* “The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you,' he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. [Mt 16:18-19]. On him he builds the Church, and commands him to feed the sheep [Jn 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed the others were also what Peter was [apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, by which it is made clear that there is one Church and one chair.... If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he be confident that he is in the Church?.” [St. Cyprian of Carthage - Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition (Treatise 1:4) (A.D. 251)].
These few topics (but a glimpse) were not only discussed but settled BEFORE Rome adopted Christianity (The Catholic Church) and eventually became The Roman Catholic Church as it also adopted its name after 313 A.D.
Is the Catholic Church Jesus’ original church? Yes!
Does this excuse all its mistakes and sins from the record? Of course not! As Christians, we are called to hold the church accountable, not leave it and let evil flourish within it.
This refusal of accountability within every Christian has led to over 40,000 diferente Christian churches and the ignorance which has flourished from it.
“This will continue until we all come to such unity in our faith and knowledge of God’s Son that we will be mature in the Lord, measuring up to the full and complete standard of Christ. Then we will no longer be immature like children. We won’t be tossed and blown about by every wind of new teaching. We will not be influenced when people try to trick us with lies so clever they sound like the truth. Instead, we will speak the truth in love, growing in every way more and more like Christ, who is the head of his body, the church.” Ephesians 4:13-15
We are called by God to unite! What better church to do it under than the one he started.
@@Antonio.R.O.C. Thanks for the quotes that you’ve selected from the early Church Fathers. As a Protestant, my concern with such quotes is to discern whether or not any of them conflict with the clear teachings of the New Testament scriptures, the standard for judging all Christian traditions. I don’t see that any of them necessarily do, except maybe Cyprian; but only in the sense that quotes like his are used to defend the later Roman Catholic doctrine of the Pope.
@Elisabet Zamora The Bible doesn’t say those exact words, but neither does it use the word “Trinity” to teach about the triune nature of God. I said something slightly different, though. I said, “the New Testament scriptures (are) the standard for judging all Christian traditions,” because even though the fundamental Christian doctrines we all agree upon were formulated from the scriptures by the early Church, for some reason all the Christian sects since then (whether Orthodox, Roman Catholic or Protestant) have ended up with differing doctrines (or traditions) from each other. It seems to me that the answer to this is to try to go back to the teachings of the NT scriptures in as unbiased of a way as possible. The Orthodox appeal to Holy Tradition, the RCs appeal to the Magisterium, and conservative Protestants appeal to the historical-grammatical method as the best method of interpretation. Although it isn’t perfect, I agree with this approach because it attempts to take the Bible on it’s own terms.
@@TharMan9 great analysis. The word of God is most definitely unique and is clearly from the apostles and Christ.
Historian here with fun facts. The Eucharist ritual is one of many things Christians made, changed, adapted in their desire to distance themselves from Jewish practices. Why would Christians want to do this? Roman Christians were trying to avoid being caught up in the Jewish-Roman Wars 66-135CE.
Hope that helps
Great share thank you. It seems like the early church over-corrected.
Thank you for the content.
Excellent! Very helpful!
As a baptist-turned-Episcopalian, I try to not import my stuff into the experience. Part of my problem is that the 1662 BCP is very Cramnerian, but my 1979 BCP seems less Protestant, because of the Oxford movement, I’m not really sure what true Anglican theology is in 2024. I feed on Him in my heart by faith with thanksgiving. I offer my body as a living sacrifice Ro 12:1. I offer the sacrifice of praise from my lips Heb 13:15. I offer my profession of The Name and confess Jesus as Lord Heb 13 again. I offer my sacrifice of sharing and hospitality and good deeds to neighbor, again Heb 13. It seems like between Rom 12 and Heb 13 we see a whole theology of sacrifice of ourselves to Jesus, United in Him with neighbor, played out dramatically as Theo drama in the mass, which serves to bind us together in an ancient ritual of sitting down together for a meal, which is only done in peace not hostility. Like making a covenant with someone in Torah where the animal is cut into pieces and the parties pass between the pieces, weird, so in the first century Greek world the reciprocity of gift giving is played out In a meal, where incongruent power structures are subverted by the grace and mercy of the higher party for the benefit of the lower party, to our everlasting salvation. Seems like Barclays work in grace should be cited in any theology of Eucharist as he is an Anglican expert on grace as developed by Protestant heroes like Luther and Barth and Zwingli. Barclay is good at pointing out the very good leaps by Luther toward the perfection of grace by incongruity (unequal reciprocity of gift giving where our gift will never equal Christ the gift). But we must nonetheless come with gifts and offerings to thank our lord in our humble estate, Romans 12:1-2 by offering our bodies to Him.
Truth Unites indeed
@@bersules8 Amen! Glad to see someone is paying attention.
Test
All
Things
@@bersules8 he prayed for total unity in the church
Thoughtful dialogue. Love it!
Dialogue?
Thanks for the interesting thoughts! I wanted to ask why it seems impossible to include dead people in the sacrifice of Christ? When we serve the Divine Liturgy in Orthodoxy, we in Christ unite His entire body (the entire Church). There are no dead, everyone is alive, there is no time, there is eternity - and here, in this ascent to Heaven, to the future Kingdom of God, we see around us all the Christians who are, were, and (as I understand) still will be. We are already in the eighth day, we have left the aeon of the fallen world, and therefore the word "dead" is generally of little use for the Eucharist, for it is the sacrament of the future age. Why are you embarrassed by the moment of including the dead in the sacrifice?
I think another problem Dr. Ortlund has, is that he rejects Maccabees being in Scripture. Because of that, he has a hard time seeing it
@@craigsherman4480 Yes, it may be so... Although in those books of Scripture that Protestantism does not reject (for example, the epistles of the holy apostles), it is said to pray for each other. And at the same time it is said: "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for with Him all are alive."
2 Timothy 1:18: "May the Lord grant him to find favor with the Lord on that day." This is Paul's prayer for Onesiphorus, who was no longer alive.
Ephesians 6:18: "Pray with every prayer and supplication at all times for all the saints." Here the apostle Paul does not divide the saints into those who are on earth and those who are in heaven, but says to pray for all the saints.
Deuteronomy 26:14: "I ... did not give of it (the tithe) for the dead...". These words do not speak of prayer, but of almsgiving done for the sake of the departed, which is also practiced by the Orthodox Church, and which is absent in Protestantism. This verse indicates that the Jews of the Old Testament gave from their income for the dead, that is, they gave alms to the living for the sake of the dead, but not from tithes.
In the tombstones of the primordial Church, we find prayers for the dead: “Lord, may the soul of Venus never be darkened” - a clear example of a prayer for the dead.
“Lord, I beg you, may he see the light of paradise. Rest easy. Eternal light to you, Timothy in Christ” - these words contain both 1) a prayer for the deceased Timothy, and 2) a prayer appeal to him.
All (!) ancient liturgies also contain prayers for the departed. Here are some examples.
From the liturgy of the Apostolic Ordinances: “We also bring to you and for all those who have pleased you from time immemorial, saints, patriarchs, prophets, righteous people, apostles, martyrs, confessors, bishops, presbyters, deacons, subdeacons, readers, singers, virgins, widows, laity and all, whose names You Yourself know."
“Let us commemorate the holy martyrs so that we may be honored to be partakers of their deeds. Let us pray for those who have rested in faith."
From the liturgy of the Holy Apostle James:
“Let us pray to the Lord for the repose of the departed fathers and brothers.”
“Let us remember all the saints and the righteous, so that by their prayers and intercession we all may have mercy.”
“Remember, Lord, God of spirits and all flesh, the Orthodox, whom we have remembered and whom we have not remembered, from the righteous Abel to this day; Rest them yourself there, in the land of the living, in Your Kingdom, in the delight of paradise, in the bowels of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, our holy fathers, from where sickness, sorrow and sighing have departed, where the light of Your face is seen and shines unceasingly.
And so on, the examples can be multiplied... That is, it's not just that the books of Maccabees are denied - other passages from Scripture are denied, as well as the experience of the early Church.
Is the Catholic Church Jesus’ original church?
The quotes provided below are historical facts in reference to our early church which existed prior to Romes adoption of Christianity in 313 A.D.
Church:
* "Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” [St. Ignatius of Antioch - Letter to the Smyrneans 8 (c. A.D. 110)]
Bishop, Priest & Deacon:
* “Since, then, I have had the privilege of seeing you, through Damas your most worthy bishop, and through your worthy presbyters Bassus and Apollonius, and through my fellow-servant the deacon Sotio, whose friendship may I ever enjoy, because he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ [St. Ignatius of Antioch- Letter to the Magnesians 2 (c. A.D. 110)].
Eucharist:
* “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ, which have 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, Ash that suffered for our sins and that the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.” [St. Ignatius of Antioch - Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6-7 (c. A.D. 110)].
Scripture:
* “[W]hoever perverts the sayings of the Lord for his own desires, and says that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, is the firstborn of Satan. Let us leave the foolishness and the false teaching of the crowd and turn back to the word that was delivered to us in the beginning.” [St. Polycrap of Smyrna - Letter to the Philippians 7 (c. A.D. 135)].
Sunday:
* “But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead.” [St. Justin Martyr - First Apology 67 (c. A.D. 151)].
Actions/Works:
* “We have learned from the prophets, and we believe it is true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man's actions. If it is not so, then all things happen by fate, and nothing is in our own power. If it is fated that this man be good, and this other evil, the former is not meritorious nor the latter blameworthy [St. Justin Martyr - First Apology 43 (c. A.D. 151)].
Apostolic Succession:
* “It is within the power of all, in every church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the Tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were instituted bishops in the churches by the apostles, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew anything these [heretics] rave about.” [St. Irenaeus of Lyons - Against Heresies 3:3:1 (c. A.D. 189)]
Baptism:
* “The children shall be baptized first. All the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family.” [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 21 (c. A.D. 215)].
Confession:
* “After this, one of the bishops present, at the request of all, laying his hand on him who is ordained bishop, shall pray this way: O God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. pour forth the power that is from you, of "the princely Spirit' that you delivered to your beloved Child, Jesus Christ, and that he bestowed on your holy apostles, who established the Church that hallows you everywhere, for the endless glory and praise of your name. Father, "who knows the hearts [of all]” grant this servant, who you have chosen for the episcopate, to feed your holy flock and serve as your high priest blamelessly night and day, and unceasingly turn away wrath from your face and offer to you the gifts of the holy Church. And that by the high priestly Spirit he may have authority "to forgive sins" according to your command.” [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 2-3 (c. A.D. 215)].
Confirmation:
* “The bishop will then lay his hand upon them, invoking, "Lord God, you who have made these worthy of the removal of sins through the bath of regeneration, make them worthy to be filled with your Holy Spirit, grant to them your grace, that they might serve you according to your will, for to you is the glory, Father and Son with the Holy Spirit, in the holy Church, now and throughout the ages of the ages. Amen." After this he pours the oil into his hand, and laying his hand on each of their heads, says, "I anoint you with holy oil in God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus, and the Holy Spirit." Then, after sealing each of them on the forehead, he shall give them the kiss of peace and say, "The Lord be with you." And the one who has been baptized shall say, "And with your spirit." So shall he do to each one [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 21-22 (c. A.D. 215).
Peter’s Authority:
* “The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you,' he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. [Mt 16:18-19]. On him he builds the Church, and commands him to feed the sheep [Jn 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed the others were also what Peter was [apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, by which it is made clear that there is one Church and one chair.... If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he be confident that he is in the Church?.” [St. Cyprian of Carthage - Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition (Treatise 1:4) (A.D. 251)].
These few topics (but a glimpse) were not only discussed but settled BEFORE Rome adopted Christianity (The Catholic Church) and eventually became The Roman Catholic Church as it also adopted its name after 313 A.D.
Is the Catholic Church Jesus’ original church? Yes!
Does this excuse all its mistakes and sins from the record? Of course not! As Christians, we are called to hold the church accountable, not leave it and let evil flourish within it.
This refusal of accountability within every Christian has led to over 40,000 diferente Christian churches and the ignorance which has flourished from it.
“This will continue until we all come to such unity in our faith and knowledge of God’s Son that we will be mature in the Lord, measuring up to the full and complete standard of Christ. Then we will no longer be immature like children. We won’t be tossed and blown about by every wind of new teaching. We will not be influenced when people try to trick us with lies so clever they sound like the truth. Instead, we will speak the truth in love, growing in every way more and more like Christ, who is the head of his body, the church.” Ephesians 4:13-15
We are called by God to unite! What better church to do it under than the one he started.
There we go.....Papist copy&paste keyboard warrior!!!
Many hold that the apostolic tradition ascribed to Hippolytus is actually a 4th century Egyptian book
Cyprian saw all bishops as successors of Peter equally
Stop spreading the myth that the catholic church is a united body of believers. It's not. Catholics church hop all the time, they argue over their magisterium, you got bishops pushing lgbtq and so on. It's not united. And that's OK. But don't spread misinformation.
Apostlic Succession is not real. This is given in the book of Hebrews that priesthood succession ended with Christ.
Thanks for all you do Gavin! Do you have any good recommendations for resources on the Eucharist? Mainly looking for good exegetical works on it from a Protestant point of view but I would gladly look at different traditions aswell. Be it papers, articles, books or stuff like that. Thanks in advance!
@Elisabet Zamora Very nice. I don't think any Church Father ever denied that the Eucharist entails or is a sacrifice.
The Eucharistic prayers in RC say that the elements are offered up to God. Luther took issue with the directionality -- offered to God as propitiation rather than to us as a sacrament. Are you ok with that language?
Of course it is. It is THAT sacrifice. It's not s re-sacrifice. Time is not so linear as we imagine. We are differed the fruits of that same sacrifice, timeless. It's not a once and for all thing, it's a out of time reality, always available for all. It's where and how eternity flows into ttemporality, becomes temporality, the source and substance of all life and being.
Protestantism thinks that it knows better, so no church, just heresy
I think on this issue, and many others, a lot of people need to go read what the word "Equivocation" means. Maybe just spend a couple hours on some lazy Saturday morning studying what that word means and learning everything possible about it.
I'll just leave it at that.
Dr. Gavin, I know you believe that Christ sacrifice was once and for all, but I could not figure out from your video how you relate that to the Roman Catholic sacrificial mass focused on the Eucharist. Would a participant in that system receive extra graces from the Eucharist? Are they pardoned from sins? It’s a big deal to miss a Mass for even just a week. Why do you believe that is? Would love to hear your views on this
A sacrifice of thanksgiving it is
As prohesied in Malachi.
Malachi 1:11 (RSVCE): "11 For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts."
This pure offering (sacrifice) is the Holy Eucharist and what makes it pure is because it is the unblemished body and blood of our Lord replacing the blemished sacrifices in the Old. Talking about typology =)
Amen
That’s a lot to read into that text. No one would understand that to be what you said it means without Rome telling them, because they said so.
@@florida8953 the parallel is undeniable. This prophecy in Malachi clearly refers to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Holy Eucharist. Isn't it nothing comes close to being a pure offering than the Body and Blood of our Lord? If the bread and wine is just a represention, as protestants claim, then it isn't pure. For how else can this pure offering be other than the unblemished Body and Blood of Christ?
Moreso, the passage says this pure offering is fulfilled from the rising of the sun to its setting, meaning it happens all the time day by day and in many places, just as the Holy Mass have been. If there's a better parallel than that, then i don't know what it is.
@@shepherdson6189 Playing the "devil's advocate" how do you know that Malachi 1:11 is referring to the Eucharist? Why not a sacrifice of praise, thanksgiving, or prayer? Or even the sacrifice of oneself to God (Romans 12:1-2)?
@@mosesking2923 The use of incense at every mass being celebrated in many parts of the world literaly from the rising of the sun to its setting at almost every hour due to the time differences are particular characteristics of these pure offering mentioned in the passage. But more importantly it is the presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the species of bread and wine, the Holy Eucharist, makes the Mass the purest offering, praise and thanks giving pre figured in the Old through animal sacrifices and perfected in the New through the unblemished Body and Blood of Christ the Lamb of God. Can any praise, thanksgiving and worship better represent Malachi 1:11?
Spot on Dr. Ortlund. Thanks again for your nuanced scholarship.
Anamnesis means memorial sacrifice. Christ instructs us to "Do this in memorial sacrifice of me". The sacrifice is not a new sacrifice, but joining with Christ's eternal sacrifice.
“This is my body given for you” sounds like a sacrifice to me.
This was an interesting one. I wasn't expecting the answer that an historic protestant view was to affirm eucharist as 'a sacrifice'. That's just my ignorance of history, though. Having heard it now I don't like it and would go so far as to say I disagree with using that term for the eucharist. The reason for this is that using the terms is inherently confusing. I think the fact that after having given the short answer of 'yes' it's a sacrifice, Dr. Ortlund then had to engage in all sorts of explanations to define the term. It's in indication that the two groups are using the terms differently which will likely be confusing for anyone unfamiliar with all the nuance. That's a good reason to avoid it. It also means that it becomes pointless to use that term, since the word itself isn't bringing key, helpful meaning, it always has to be defined or redefined. Lastly, just from a simple grammatical standpoint, we know that Christ's sacrifice on the cross is 'THE' sacrifice. The description provided by Dr. Ortlund defined the eucharist as an act that connects us to 'THE' sacrifice, implying just one sacrifice and the sacraments as a connection to it. However, just using the English article, 'a' sacrifice, to most people implies a different, other sacrifice to 'THE' sacrifice. Christ's death was a sacrifice, and the eucharist is also 'a' sacrifice (another one). Once you have two sacrifices you have an issue.
Because these terms exist historically and are used by some even in the present day, it's helpful to try to understand what's going on, but I think in answer to the video's title question, the answer today, for most people, in English at least, has to be 'no', it's not a sacrifice. Of course, that presents its own questions, but for me that's appropriate. Better to deal with those questions there rather than risk misleading people for no real gain.
Side note, if I can dare offer some feedback/a suggestion for Dr. Ortlund's speaking style. I think you can get away with being more direct and succinct that you often are. It would even be helpful. I can hear your tendency to think through your awareness of nuance and multiple theoretical responses as you speak, so you're very, very careful with your words and you build your case as you go, touching on those things. It sometimes drags things out a lot though. I don't think you necessarily have to be so 'apologetic' (no pun intended!), in how you speak, in order to maintain your irenic approach. It might sometimes be better just to give a succinct and clear answer up front, which may generate questions, and then go on to address those questions afterwards, rather than rabbit trail so much on your way to finally making your point. Of course, you were also speaking off the cuff which isn't easy, and all of this might just be how you 'think out loud'. Either way, it was clear in the end, I just found myself wanting to hear you get to the point faster, because I knew you would go on to clarify things later. Your irenic heart is clear. There's little risk of you erring the other way, I think. So don't be afraid to be a bit more clear cut and direct up front, and then address questions later... maybe.
Thanks for all you do. It's a great blessing.
G.
Two sacrifices (korbanot) were incumbent on the High Priest.
One was the annual Atonement Offering in the Spring - a blood sacrifice on account of the sin of the golden calf. This was abolished by Christ's self-offering.
The other was the grain offering (mincha - see Hebrew text of Malachi 1:11). Every priest had do make this offering on his first day in service.The High Priest uniquely had make one every day, but he usually deputised other priests to do it for him.
The Eucharist is analogous to the grain offering.
Gavin, help me. I respect you a lot, but in a previous video you said something along the lines of, "Protestants should continue to Reform," and here you are saying, "Let's go back to the Reformers." I'm confused and although I'm not sure it is a contradiction, it would help if you explained appealing to the founders of the Reformation rather than either ECF or continuing to Reform.
Reformation could occur in either direction (progression or reclamation of something lost or obscured) There is no contradiction as I see it.
Is the Catholic Church Jesus’ original church?
The quotes provided below are historical facts in reference to our early church which existed prior to Romes adoption of Christianity in 313 A.D.
Church:
* "Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” [St. Ignatius of Antioch - Letter to the Smyrneans 8 (c. A.D. 110)]
Bishop, Priest & Deacon:
* “Since, then, I have had the privilege of seeing you, through Damas your most worthy bishop, and through your worthy presbyters Bassus and Apollonius, and through my fellow-servant the deacon Sotio, whose friendship may I ever enjoy, because he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ [St. Ignatius of Antioch- Letter to the Magnesians 2 (c. A.D. 110)].
Eucharist:
* “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ, which have 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, Ash that suffered for our sins and that the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.” [St. Ignatius of Antioch - Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6-7 (c. A.D. 110)].
Scripture:
* “[W]hoever perverts the sayings of the Lord for his own desires, and says that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, is the firstborn of Satan. Let us leave the foolishness and the false teaching of the crowd and turn back to the word that was delivered to us in the beginning.” [St. Polycrap of Smyrna - Letter to the Philippians 7 (c. A.D. 135)].
Sunday:
* “But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead.” [St. Justin Martyr - First Apology 67 (c. A.D. 151)].
Actions/Works:
* “We have learned from the prophets, and we believe it is true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man's actions. If it is not so, then all things happen by fate, and nothing is in our own power. If it is fated that this man be good, and this other evil, the former is not meritorious nor the latter blameworthy [St. Justin Martyr - First Apology 43 (c. A.D. 151)].
Apostolic Succession:
* “It is within the power of all, in every church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the Tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were instituted bishops in the churches by the apostles, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew anything these [heretics] rave about.” [St. Irenaeus of Lyons - Against Heresies 3:3:1 (c. A.D. 189)]
Baptism:
* “The children shall be baptized first. All the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family.” [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 21 (c. A.D. 215)].
Confession:
* “After this, one of the bishops present, at the request of all, laying his hand on him who is ordained bishop, shall pray this way: O God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. pour forth the power that is from you, of "the princely Spirit' that you delivered to your beloved Child, Jesus Christ, and that he bestowed on your holy apostles, who established the Church that hallows you everywhere, for the endless glory and praise of your name. Father, "who knows the hearts [of all]” grant this servant, who you have chosen for the episcopate, to feed your holy flock and serve as your high priest blamelessly night and day, and unceasingly turn away wrath from your face and offer to you the gifts of the holy Church. And that by the high priestly Spirit he may have authority "to forgive sins" according to your command.” [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 2-3 (c. A.D. 215)].
Confirmation:
* “The bishop will then lay his hand upon them, invoking, "Lord God, you who have made these worthy of the removal of sins through the bath of regeneration, make them worthy to be filled with your Holy Spirit, grant to them your grace, that they might serve you according to your will, for to you is the glory, Father and Son with the Holy Spirit, in the holy Church, now and throughout the ages of the ages. Amen." After this he pours the oil into his hand, and laying his hand on each of their heads, says, "I anoint you with holy oil in God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus, and the Holy Spirit." Then, after sealing each of them on the forehead, he shall give them the kiss of peace and say, "The Lord be with you." And the one who has been baptized shall say, "And with your spirit." So shall he do to each one [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 21-22 (c. A.D. 215).
Peter’s Authority:
* “The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you,' he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. [Mt 16:18-19]. On him he builds the Church, and commands him to feed the sheep [Jn 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed the others were also what Peter was [apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, by which it is made clear that there is one Church and one chair.... If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he be confident that he is in the Church?.” [St. Cyprian of Carthage - Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition (Treatise 1:4) (A.D. 251)].
These few topics (but a glimpse) were not only discussed but settled BEFORE Rome adopted Christianity (The Catholic Church) and eventually became The Roman Catholic Church as it also adopted its name after 313 A.D.
Is the Catholic Church Jesus’ original church? Yes!
Does this excuse all its mistakes and sins from the record? Of course not! As Christians, we are called to hold the church accountable, not leave it and let evil flourish within it.
This refusal of accountability within every Christian has led to over 40,000 diferente Christian churches and the ignorance which has flourished from it.
“This will continue until we all come to such unity in our faith and knowledge of God’s Son that we will be mature in the Lord, measuring up to the full and complete standard of Christ. Then we will no longer be immature like children. We won’t be tossed and blown about by every wind of new teaching. We will not be influenced when people try to trick us with lies so clever they sound like the truth. Instead, we will speak the truth in love, growing in every way more and more like Christ, who is the head of his body, the church.” Ephesians 4:13-15
We are called by God to unite! What better church to do it under than the one he started.
Not to speak for Pastor Ortlund but I would suggest the answer lies in the nature of reformation. The heart of reformation is in movement towards the Scriptures, the Word of God, the gospel of Jesus Christ, whichever way you want to phrase that. The famous historical reformers weren't trying to improve or modify or progress Roman Catholic Christianity in some general direction, but rather were trying to get them to reform what they had based on the word of God. It was, in a sense, Roman Catholicism that was 'progressing' their faith along the line of the teaching of men in their magisterium. They had an idea there and were following along with it. They had become untethered from the anchor of the Scriptures and floating in the direction of the leading of men, or following the pattern of men. So reformation is to re-form the faith based on the pattern of faith revealed in the Scriptures. As such, present day Protestants should always be reforming so that they form or re-form faith based on that unchanging pattern of faith, in the face of drift both ancient and new.
@@galantkoh3917 I would agree with wanting to avoid the phrase progress when it comes to the gospel message, but I think it's fine in general to talk about the church progressing at least in terms of ethics, theology and liturgical practice.
Many societal issues took a long time for the gospel to penetrate the general church community and are still a work in progress in certain ways (slavery, racism, women's rights) The passage of time and the work of the Holy Spirit will certainly reveal gaps in our own time we do not yet see. In this sense (at least it seems to me) the church is slowly but surely bringing the gospel to bare on more of our every day lives. I think it is fair to cast this as a progression toward the gospel in a way that is new for the Church, though as you said it is the application of something unchanging.
Also our theological knowledge has grown in specificity. Though it (ideally) is not describing anything new, we progress in our ability to effectively and clearly communicate theological concepts, and discard unhelpful or less correct formulations. (Communicating the trinity as three persons and one essence for example, and Christ Jesus as one person with two natures)
Regarding liturgical practice, as the gospel expands to a larger and larger set of cultures and contexts it seems natural to me that different church environments and routines become more or less effective and new "innovations" are required in this realm, to "be all things to all people"
Though again it is simply a repacking of the unchanging gospel.
help me understand where you see a contradiction. Returning to historic Protestant views on some matters and continually reforming the church are not at odds, so far as I can tell.
Of course the Holy Eucharist is a sacrifice. Our Blessed Lord instituted it in the context of the Passover. “Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore, let us celebrate the feast.”
Why can’t Protestants see that, is it pride or Satan
Dr. Ortland, this is not an area I am well versed. I do remember reading Calvin, especially his commentary on Hebrews, condemning the idea of the eucharist as a sacrifice. I'm clear that much of medieval piety turned into a re-sacrifice. But in his commentary on Hebrews he condemned the idea of the bloodless sacrifice. I assumed he was condemning the Eastern liturgy (Basil) which uses that term. Is there something else in play here?
Yes. The Sacrifice of the Eucharist. A sacrifice is always an offering with a meal.
Dr. Ortlund has problem with Mass for the dead, that is Mass for the souls in purgatory. The problem is on purgatory, which any good Protestant would object. The root of the problem or why they reject purgatory is double imputation taught by the Reformers: through faith alone we get Christ' righteousness imputed on or credited to us while our sins, past AND future, are imputed on or credited to Christ (who bore them on the cross). If this is the case, then we do not need purgatory. Is double imputation scriptural?
This is my body...
I am the door
"it's finished" said Jesus. It's blasphemy to repeat in any form !
"This is the cup of my blood, poured out for the forgiveness of sins." Sounds like a sin sacrifice for forgiveness of sins.
Bt really, if we were watching a movie and saw a cup fill with blood and flesh, would you think that it's the good guys or bad guys?
Except your quote verse 28. I quote verse 29 of Matthew's Gospel: " But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it with you, new, in My Father’s kingdom.”. The passage only works if you dont read the full passage.
@@HisLivingStone241 but we agree.... blood filling cup is the bad guys
@@ri3m4nn oh no I wasn't addressing you, my fault. I don't know about your explanation but yes the wine remains wine.
The sin sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins was carried out on the cross.
Dr. Ortlund, I think you might find the commentary in Abbot Vonier's excellent book 'A Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist' helpful. Here are some quotes from the chapter on 'The Essence of the Eucharistic Sacrifice':
• The essence, then, of the sacrifice of the Mass ought to be completely stated before we touch Christ in the personal aspect; that is to say, the Eucharistic sacrifice is not directly a mystery of Christ’s Person, it is primarily a mystery of Christ’s Body and Blood.
• Christ’s Body is offered up, Christ’s Blood is offered up; these are the inward kernel of the external sign in the sacrificial rite; and beyond these-the Body and the Blood-the sacrament, as sacrament, does not go.
• When we offer up the great sacrifice we say that we are re-enacting Christ’s death sacramentally. Now Christ’s death is the separation of His Body and Blood; we do neither more nor less when we sacrifice at the altar.
• We do not enter directly into the mystery of Christ’s Person; we enter into the mystery of His Body and Blood.
• But let us constantly remember that in the sacrament we are not dealing with the natural life of Christ; we are dealing with His representative life.
• If we were to say that at the sacrifice of the Mass Christ comes down from heaven and is sacrificed again, we should be expressing the mystery of the Eucharist in a totally wrong
way.
• When Christ was Body and Blood only, He was the perfect sacrifice; and the Eucharist is a perfect sacrifice because it again makes present-such is the literal meaning of representation-all there was on this earth of Christ when His Soul had been given up to the Father.
• After His death, and before His Resurrection, Christ was truly on this earth; but in what state! His Body was lifeless and bloodless, His Blood was poured out, and the earth drank it as it had drunk the blood of Abel; yet in this broken condition the Person of Christ remained, for the death of Christ was not as the death of Abel.
• Hypostatic Union survived that great dissolution-that is to say, the divine Person of the Word remained united as before, both with the Body and Blood of Christ;
• The Person of Christ as Person remained entire, though His human nature had been broken; so that it may be said in all exactness of theological language, that the Body and Blood on Calvary or in the sepulcher were Christ, on account of the divine Person hypostatically united to them.
• It is the genius and very nature of the Christian sacrament to be an act which may be repeated indefinitely, though the content, or, if you like, the object of the act, be immutable.
Only Protestants would question this, which speaks volumes about their inadequate faith system. Research Eucharistic miracles which science can’t explain. Debate doesn’t satisfy, truth does. Also Mal 1:11
Only papists would say that Jesus instructs you to break the law of Lev 17:15
Crazy popers
How I long for the day the Eucharist (Christ himselfk) can become the focal point of gathering among evangelical Christians rather than a sermon that depends on the preacher.
The focus of the mass is not the risen Jesus but rary the papist version of him in wafer form.
Gavin, do you accept the practice of praying for the dead? If you want to talk about something that is easily provable to go back to the early Church, that would be one of them. Jews pray for the dead. Every Church with roots in the ancient Church prays for the dead. You find references to it all over the place, including in the Deuterocanonical books, St. Cyril's catechetical lectures, and in St. Augustine's writings -- where, for example, he mentions that his mother's last request was that he remember her at the Liturgy.
Hi John, this is a bit off topic from this video, but yes, historically most Protestants have not objected to prayers for the dead per se, but only the abuse of the practice. E.g., the Augsburg Confession stated that "we do not prohibit" the practice, but objectes to practices that had accrued over time (like masses for the dead) and fallen into great commercial scandal. Similarly with, say, Anglican and Methodist views. In areas where there is strong and early historical precedent for a practice in the church, we do not dissent, and seek not to bind consciences in areas where the data is unclear. What we object to instead are practices where the evidence is strongly against a particular practice or doctrine being apostolic but instead gives the impression of a later accretion, such as with the assumption of Mary, or the veneration of images, or the papacy, or indulgences and the treasury of merit, or having 7 sacraments, or transubstantiation, or not distributing the Lord's Supper in both kinds, or not translating the Scripture into the vernacular, or priestly celibacy, and so forth. On some of these topics, though not all, we find agreement with the Orthodox.
@@TruthUnites It was discussed in this video in terms of doing masses for the dead, which is one way of praying for the dead -- and you had a problem with it, even though St. Augustine clearly didn't. Lutherans have not historically objected to prayers for the dead, and the Anglicans eventually allowed it. Evangelicals, however, have consistently been opposed to it on the whole.
@@fr.johnwhiteford6194 I was discussing masses for the dead; this is not the same as prayers for the dead. There are also different kinds of masses for the dead; masses as propitiatory sacrifices on their behalf are different from those done in commemoration of them. This is what distinguishes some patristic practice from the later medieval context that the Reformers were responding to. I would respectfully disagree that evangelicals have "consistently" opposed it; many Anglicans, Lutherans, and Methodists, for example, *are* evangelicals. John Wesley, for instance, held it as a duty to pray for the dead, and his influence among evangelicals is vast.
@@TruthUnites What is your source for asserting different kinds of masses for the dead. We commemorate the dead at every Liturgy, just as Christians have always done, but there are some Liturgies in which prayers for the dead are more especially emphasized. However, there is nothing fundamentally different. Perhaps Roman Catholics make such a distinction, but I have never seen such a distinction laid out anywhere.
And as a former Wesleyan I can tell you that the fact that John Wesley said or did something has no necessary connection with what his followers have taught and done. John Wesley also read the Fathers of the Church. His followers mostly stopped at reading John Wesley... if that.
@@fr.johnwhiteford6194 I don't think I care to get into another lengthy back-and-forth, but you can see the fuller video if you want further discussion of masses as propitiatory sacrifices for the dead. Its in response to an anathema given at the Council of Trent. Propitiatory sacrifices for the dead involve reduced sentences in purgatory through the extinguishing of temporal punishment. This is in the Western context and does not directly concern Orthodoxy.
Wesleyans don't always read Wesley, of course. Orthodox Christians don't always read Orthodox sources, so there is no need for disparaging comments about Wesleyans. The point is your "consistently" adverb is an overstatement.
I am happy I could address your question about prayers for the dead, but probably won't respond further.
It CANNOT be a sacrifice.
Those reformers needed a bit of reformation!
We shouldn't even entertain the idea that a priest (not an office in the New Testament, except for the priesthood of all believers) can offer up the bread and wine as a sacrifice. It too easily leads to such incredible idolatry and even blasphemy.
You’re wrong. Jn 6 51-58. The apostles were the first bishops from whom succession flowed
@geoffjs How are you establishing that doctrine from that text?!
Bishops are a perfectly biblical office, as are deacons, and there are texts which establish this. (see 1 Tim 3, Titus 1)
But as far as a priesthood is concerned, in the New Covenant there is now the Melchizedek Priesthood, of which Jesus is the sole office holder-- or at least, He is the High Priest of the new order. After that, ALL WE who are believers, are the new priesthood under our High Priest, Jesus.
Hebrews 7:11-28
1 Peter 2:4-9
@@geoffjs John 6 says nothing about the Lord's Supper being a sacrifice.
@@thinkerj The Holy Mass is an unbloody REPRESENTATION of Calvary with the priest, in persona Christi acting as both priest offering up himself as sacrifice to the father
@@geoffjs There are no priests in the New Covenant, apart from the universal priesthood of believers. It makes no theological sense to "represent" the sacrifice of Christ unless you believe that our sins were not actually carried onto the cross and removed once and for all. Which would make a mockery of the crucifixion of Christ.
Did Luther call Eucharist as sacrifice as Dr. Ortlund said in the beginning? The following is what Luther wrote:
Where is it written, that the mass is a sacrifice, or where has Christ taught that one should offer consecrated bread and wine to God? Do you not hear? Christ has sacrificed himself once [Heb. 7:27; 9:25-26]; henceforth he will not be sacrificed by anyone else. He wishes us to remember his sacrifice. Why are you then so bold as to make a sacrifice out of this remembrance? Is it possible that you are so foolish as to act upon your own devices, without any scriptural authority? (Luther: The Misuse of the Mass, English translation from Luther's Works, Vol. 36, pp. 136-137)
I have consoled those whose consciences are weak and have instructed them so that they may know and recognize that there is no sacrifice in the New Testament other than the sacrifice of the cross [Heb. 10:10] and the sacrifice of praise [Heb. 13:15] which are mentioned in the Scriptures; so that no one any longer has cause to doubt that the mass is not a sacrifice. (ibid, p. 192)
On the same subject John Calvin wrote:
But to what tends the mass which has been established, that a hundred thousand sacrifices may be performed every day, but just to bury and suppress the passion of our Lord, in which he offered himself to his Father as the only victim? Who but a blind man does not see that it was Satanic audacity to oppose a truth so clear and transparent? (Inst. 3.18.3)
How is conflating terms of "sacrifice" suppose to show there is a Protestant contradiction?
@@HisLivingStone241 If you watch the video at the very beginning Dr. Ortlund stated that Luther called the Eucharist as sacrifice. In my response I pointed out that Luther did not consider it as sacrifice.
@@justfromcatholic that does not address the fact that Luther and Gavin are using the term ''sacrifice'' in different ways, as Gavin also says that you have to be careful in how you use the term ''sacrifice''.
@@HisLivingStone241 Can you explain how different their understanding of sacrifice?
@@justfromcatholic Luther is referring to transubstantiation which teaches that Christ is present in the bread and wine via body and blood and is re-offered in an unbloody propitiary sacrifice (since the bread and wine still taste like bread and wine) while Gavin is referencing to Spirtiual Presence which is about the sanctifying work on the soul that takes place as you praise God for His work and yet remember the great sacrifice that it was. Thus, Luther reference to sacrifice is different from what Gavin references.
Protestants are not leaving their roots behind when rejecting the concept of the commemoration not being a sacrifice.
There were always Protestant writers who argued against that concept. They were called Sacramentarians.
The problem with this debate is that one way or the other you end up denying the efficacy of Faith Alone. One thing is to say that the sacraments strengthen your faith, which is different from saying that they generate faith, or save us.
No sacrifice no church, you fool yourselves as faith alone is heresy see James 2:24. The Eucharist is essential Jn 6 51-58
There’s so much disconnect from the Jewish roots of Christianity with so many of these issues. It’s much more important to understand how Peter and Paul understood these things as Jews than how some historical church figures understood these things. You can’t talk about the Lords Supper without talking about Passover.
Are you confusing Jew with Israelite?
They are not the same
@@geordiewishart1683 I am definitely not confusing the two but perhaps you need to educate yourself about the distinction
Definitely it seems a real blocker to ultimate ecumenical unity with Roman Catholicism is their ecclesiology namely, their idea of infallibility of the Pope ex cathedra and the councils. It really puts them in a corner not allowing for doctrinal development or correction, as you've noted elsewhere. Otherwise, I think we could agree on a definition of "sacrifice" in regards to the eucharist.
Protestantism believes in symbolism not the real presence Jn 6 51-58, so much for church and personal interpretation Mal 1:11
@@geoffjs Not historical Protestantism, people like Martin Luther did believe in real presence. Dr. Ortlund actually has good videos on this, would suggest checking out. Though I would agree that much of modern Protestantism lacks real presence belief.
Yes the Eucharist is a sacrifice
what do u mean by that though, thats kinda the point of the video
It’s a real spiritual presence, but it is not a re-sacrifice of Christ. That is a horrific dogma and pagan in origins
@@SaltyApologist spiritual simple means it is done by the grace of the Holy Spirit, not that is not real matter as being the real deyficated flesh and blood of Lord God almighty Jesus Christ
@@SaltyApologist It is actually the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ extend in the centuries to participate in it .
@@ΓραικοςΕλληναςa re-sacrifice?
So, I have a problem with application language as well, although I suppose it depends on how you cash out the term. To me, this term indicates the need for reapplying the effects of the cross to the believer. The believer needs to be regenerated again, forgiveness needs to be granted again, and Christ becomes out representative again. Such things are lost and to be applied again. How does this not compromise our unity with Christ and justification by faith? Reaffirmation I can get behind, but not application.
reapplication is standard language for ongoing forgiveness. It's how Protestants regularly speak of the effects of Christ's intercession, e.g. (Heb. 7:25). WE have been forgiven, but we need that forgiveness to be reapplied when we sin. Does that help?
@@TruthUnites I do not think so. Here are my thoughts. Because Christ has become our righteousness recapitulation style (2 Cor 5:20) and offered his body as payment and propitiation for our sins once and for all PSA style (Rom 3:25, Heb 10:10-14), the believer never stands in a state of needed forgiveness again. He has forever perfected those who are being sanctified, because we are in Him (Eph 1:7). As we sin, the blood is already applied, and his perfect life already covers our fault. Otherwise, we must say that the believer who sinned and died before eating the Eucharist and confessing is in a state of condemnation because the sacrifice was not reapplied.
@@jordanvelazco6408 how would you reconcile that with David's prayer in Psalm 32, or HEbrews 10:22? It seems to me that many biblical passages speak of believers having forgiveness applied to them.
@@TruthUnites the passive participles in Heb 10:22 are in the perfect tense, indicating a prior action that has a lasting effect, not a repeated or ongoing cleansing. In context (10:10-14, 20), I believe the best candidate for that is the cleansing that happens at conversion. Referencing Ps. 32 is shaky specifically because it is under the Old Covenant. It is a feature of the New Covenant that guards the believer from becoming guilty and needing forgiveness granted again, as Heb 10: 15-18 points out.
But allow me to push the question, Under your idea of reapplication, if the believer dies before he confesses his sin or takes communion, is he condemned or his sin unforgiven?
I think you hit something very important here, and it's also what I believe. Or at the least it's the most sensible option. I'm not saying that sins I have yet to commit are already forgiven, yet the propitiation is already made on my behalf once for all. And that the sins will be forgiven, yet if I continue on in sin, then there would be no propitiation left for me.
❤❤❤
UA-cam is being weird. I cannot see most of the replies. Hope it gets corrected soon.
I love the short video excerpts. Very helpful as a reminder to important points.
I am having the same problem. Very odd. Thanks! Glad the clips are useful.
Right on Dr. Ortlund, thank you 👍
Why did God instruct the Jews to meticulously adhere to procedures for consuming their Passover lamb? The blood of the lamb saved the israelites who complied to smear them on their doorpost...
Did not John the Baptist introduce Jesus as the lamb of God?
God sent His Son to be a sacrificial victim to redeem mankind. If so, should we not consume His body as Jesus Himself commanded during His last supper? Jesus chose to Institute the Holy Eucharist before He willingly led to be crucified. "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will not have eternal life.... " Jesus being divine transcends time and space. Sacrifice to the higher power from time of old is followed by a meal. Hence Eucharistic ritual known as Holy Mass is a sacrifice.
Protestantism denies this reality Jn 6 51-58, so no church. They either ignore or are ignorant of Mal 1:11. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is offered daily in all places at all times as commanded by Jesus. Daily bread in the Lord’s Prayer, in the original language refers to supernatural natural bread ie the Eucharist. Read the Early Fathers
@@geoffjs Christians in general believe that Jesus' passion & death by crucifixion on the cross is a sacrifice. His death on the cross is the fulfilment of God's promise to save mankind in appointed time. His death is a one time blood sacrifice for salvation of mankind. His sacrifice is a mystery for non believers.
Perhaps it would have been easier to reason and understand if Jesus would have instituted the last supper after His resurrection. But why did Jesus choose to have the last supper before his passion. Why only with His chosen apostles, not even His mother.
Knowing fully well that His appointed time has come for carrying out His mission.. Death on the cross, He spoke the last words to His Apostles and showed them in action. His words/teachings are plain and not figures of speech, metaphor. For is there anyone who would call his/her closest relatives/ friends before death to entertain them with figues of speech?
He instituted Eucharist.. "This is my body... This is my blood which will be poured out for you.. Do this (bloodless sacrifice) in memory of me". This mystery was further revealed post resurrection for two of his disciples at Emmaus. He broke the bread.. and vanished from their sight..
In Catholic Church, to call Mass as the sacrifice, and concecrated bread and wine as Jesus Body & Blood, requires valid ordained priesthood, sacred liturgy, altar, Bread and wine etc.
Eucharistic miracles are divine proofs & revealations that uses to affirm our faith in the doctrine of Transubstantiation.
'Senses can not grasp this marvel, faith must serve to compensate'- Tantum ergo.
God knows well that since He created mankind as mortal and spiritual being, we needed to have both physical food and spiritual food for continuing and sustaining in our physical & spiritual journey.
Do you think anyone taught unconditional election prior to Augustine?
yes, Saint Paul did, see Ephesians 1:4-5.
Paul and Jesus, especially when Jesus said "you didnt choose me, but i chose you."
Marius Victorinus, Cyprian of Carthage, Clement of Rome, but rarely this topic was covered before Augustine.
5 replies, but I see none. Weird.
@@wojo9732 He also said he chose Judas, but Judas was a devil (John 7:70) and it would be better that he was never born. #CalvinismDebunkedAgain
In some countries, eucharist are just given in half.
The priest only give the bread, no wine.
I’m not a theologian, I’m just an engineer and even I can see that the Eucharist is a sacrifice. If you spent thousands of dollars on a theology degree and you don’t understand that basic fact, you might want to ask for your money back!
Protestantism is blinded by pride and personal interpretation. Without sacrifice, they don’t have church and don’t realise that
Do we need it to take away our sins? Is it propitatiatory?
@@timothylethbridge9805 I think it’s a purely symbolic empty ritual practiced by Christians since apostolic times. 😮😅
It’s Jesus Sacred Heart. Eucharistic Miracles by Carlo Acutis
John Chrysostom, Homilies on Hebrews, Homily 17, 6:
What then? Do not we offer every day? We offer indeed, but making a remembrance of His death, and this [remembrance] is one and not many. How is it one, and not many? Inasmuch as that [Sacrifice] was once for all offered, [and] carried into the Holy of Holies. This is a figure of that [sacrifice] and this remembrance of that. (...) He is our High Priest, who offered the sacrifice that cleanses us. That we offer now also, which was then offered, which cannot be exhausted. This is done in remembrance of what was then done. For (says He) "do this in remembrance of Me." Luke 22:19 It is not another sacrifice, as the High Priest, but we offer always the same, or rather we perform a remembrance of a Sacrifice.
So, if we were watching a movie and saw a cup fill with blood and flesh, would we think that was the good guys or bad guys?
@@bersules8 Given your indirect answer, you also it's always the bad guys doing blood rituals.
I see no comments even though there's 4? Weird. Anyways, yes, it's always, always, always the bad guys.
@@bersules8 typical Catholic non-response. 🙄
@@bersules8 I'm not literally "reborn", nor is Jesus literally a "vine", etc, etc. Why avoid the question...good guys or bad guys?.
Hahaha true. We'd all be yelling, "get out, what are you doing! Don't pick that up!!!" Hahaha
I'm really curious if you have a take on the common work of Pope Benedict XVI and Wolfhart Pannenberg. In essence they realised we can both agree that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, in that, for Protestants, or of Lutherans at least. This is a sacrifice of joy (hence the semantics of Eucharist), just like the Old Testament describes sacrifices of flour, for joy, not propitiatory. And Pannenberg argued, while Christ sacrificed himself once and for all, we participate in that sacrifice by eating!
In other words, we can agree with the Catholics on a functional perspective because our participation brings nothing to the sacrifice itself! But as a sacrament, we participate in the sacrifice by receiving the benefits of it, i.e. eating! ("Take and eat, this is my body [...]")
Was jesus in our own image genesis 1 v 26.
Ecclesiastes chapter 7v16. Never have a balanced mind between our carnal nature and our spiritual nature.
The early Church Fathers taught prayers for the dead, and masses for the dead, those suffering temporary punishments after death, are aided by the prayers and masses and sacrifices for them. Dr. Ortlund conveniently leaves out these complete writings of the Church Fathers he doesn't like! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Repeating yourself does not equate to you actually saying something, especially when Gavin responded to you and asked for you to provide the evidence that you've said you have "brought up and yet he's refused to answer". I quote Gavin, the one you talk about but have not answered in about 22 hours since he asked (which you wouldn't take that long to try to say something to guys like TharMan9 or me, maybe 2 hours max). Gavin: "Matthew, I am aware of Eucharistic celebrations as commemorations for the dead in the patristic era, but where did church fathers commend them as propitiatory sacrifices for the dead?".
Matthew's response: [crickets]
@@HisLivingStone241 Haha!
@@HisLivingStone241 I totally agree, The repetitive false teachings of Gavin Ortlund Doesn't make them true! I provided evidence from the early Church Fathers who prayed for the dead and offered the sacrifice of the liturgy for souls after death undergoing temporary punishments. Gavin never responded as usual! Have you no reading glasses? You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@HisLivingStone241😂
@joshuajaison9957 I'm sorry, is this meant to mock me? I ask because you keep on putting laughing emojis on all my responses.
The Eucharist means "Thanksgiving". The sacrifice of thanksgiving was the peace offering in the Old Testament. The peace offering was to thank God for something that was already accomplished in the past.
The peace offering has nothing to do with a propitiatory sacrifice / a sacrifice related to forgiveness of sins or participating in the death of Christ on the Cross.
It's a way to say thank you God for what Jesus did on the Cross.
I just made a video about this on my channel.
I think mixing it in with the death of Christ on the Cross diminishes the finished work of Christ on the Cross and leads to confusion, making people think they need to take the Eucharist to have their sins forgiven.
Jesus commanded it Jn 6 51-58 but Protestants deny it
Yes.
what do u mean by that though, thats kinda the point of the video
Trent makes it quite clear that the Eucharist is itself a separate and distinct oblation from that of the Cross…and that it is-in its own right-propitiatory. So the common modern Catholic talking point of its being a “re-presentation” is inaccurate.
Where, I'd love to read this...can you point to the location I'm genuinely asking...
@robertcampbell1343.
Sorry, I wasn’t notified of this request. Here it is (from the 22nd Session of Trent on the Sacrifice of the Mass):
Canon 3. “If anyone says that the sacrifice of the mass is one only of praise and thanksgiving; or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory one…let him be anathema.”
Now, “Praise & Thanksgiving” and “Commemoration” are not the only other possible options. An actual “re-presentation” would be another, as would an “application” or a “distribution.”
If Christ is sacrificed once for all, then only the original sacrifice can be propitiatory. Trent seems to want to have its cake and eat it, too. They want to make the unbloody “sacrifice” as propitiatory without derogating from Christ’s one and only sacrifice. How is that even logically possible? I cannot see how.
@robertcampbell1343.
It would kind of like giving someone a patent or a copyright, but allowing others to use it without payment or permission. A patent is only valuable if it’s unique and non-transferable.
Besides, what’s the point of calling the unbloody sacrifice propitiatory? How is that superior to calling it a re-presentation of the (uniquely) propitiatory sacrifice offered on the cross?
I was disappointed that the video ended before the Catholic could say a single word.
Esto es propaganda protestante no diálogo.
@@pml8256¡Exactamente!
It is false, erroneous, and dangerous to say that the "...once-for-all event (of Christ's atonement on the cross) is somehow applied or extended into the recipient in the actual moment of reception." Chemnitz went too far! This idea of Chemnitz sets up a framework wherein people look to the eating as salvific; they trust the *good work* of ingesting God rather than trust simply in Christ by faith. Their faith is transferred from Christ on the cross to Christ in the Eucharist. This is how the RCC holds its members captive: they teach that only the RC priest can confect the true Sacrament, that only the RC priest can summon Christ bodily from heaven to take His place upon the sacrificial altar. This error is precisely where Chemnitz's idea inevitably leads, and he was too blind to see it; but we should not fault him, since the influence of RC theology & doctrine so powerfully permeated the culture back then, and the fledgling Lutheran Christians were still taking 'baby steps' in some regards.
Gavin, I think you are trying too hard to be ecumenical, for you are compromising the Biblical viewpoint of Christ's promise (that every one who believes in Him will receive eternal life) when you essentially open the door to a concept of receiving eternal life through a physical ingestion of bread and wine. Christ's sacrifice *is NOT applied* by the partaking of the Sacrament, it is *represented and replayed* in the sense that a TV news report might replay a past event with a recorded clip. Your (and Chemnitz's) line of thinking shows exactly why some Protestant branches overreact by holding to a mere memorialist/symbolic view of the sacrament; they fear that people will be sucked back into an error that compromises the Gospel of faith in Christ alone!
Protestantism is false by their rejection of sacrificial worship Jn 6 51-58
@@geoffjs Understanding the import of this one passage in John really is crucial. For *if Jesus literally intends that our salvation hinge upon the actual ingestion of His physical flesh, blood, soul, and divinity (the fullness of Jesus),* then all of the Protestant followers of Jesus Christ are going straight to hell just for that one failure. (Anyone who receives communion as a memorial and symbol of Christ, certainly. And probably the same for those who believe they partake of Christ in the Eucharist in a spiritual sense only.) If this is the case, then faith in Jesus Christ is really nothing without the eating of Christ; trusting in Jesus' propitiation, living a sanctified life, and _even water baptism_ would be _for naught, if_ one does not consume the transubstantiated, Roman Catholic communion. This is a very serious matter! We dare not treat it lightly.
I know this is hard for a Catholic to hear (as it was for me at first), but the context of John 6 *in its entirety* does not support a literal interpretation of verses 53-56. Plain and simple, it doesn't. I suggest that you read the full chapter every day for the next month and meditate upon it each day. Let the written word of God speak to you.
As you read, I hope you will ask yourself some questions:
1. If physical ingestion of God the Son is really the key to eternal life, why is this one instance the only time we read of it in the entire Bible? Why is 'eating Jesus' never mentioned in the salvation passages John 3:14-18; John 6:28-29,40,47; Mark 16:16; Romans 4; Romans 10:9-10; Galatians 3; Ephesians 2:8-9; etc.?
2. Why did these people follow Him across the lake? Are they disciples, or are they hard-hearted skeptics?
3. What is the main point Jesus tries to convince them of? What is the thing Jesus keeps repeating, starting with verse 29? (see also v. 35, 40, 47).
4. Was Jesus conducting a teaching session on the subject of the Eucharist? (Note: this was a full year before the Last Supper took place.)
5. When Jesus said, "I am bread," was this meant to be literal or was He likening HImself to the O.T. manna? If the former, did Jesus transform Himself into a loaf of baked bread? Isn't "I am bread" the exact opposite of turning bread into flesh? If verse 53 is to be read in a literal sense, shouldn't "I am bread" also be read in a literal sense? Since Jesus did not transform Himself into a loaf of barley bread, He was speaking metaphorically, so shouldn't we read verses 53-56 in the same manner: metaphorically?
6. When Jesus said those things about eating His flesh (v. 53-56), the disciples didn't understand what he meant; so when they were apart from the crowd, Jesus *explained (in verse 63) what He meant. Why is verse 63 trivialized by Catholics? Why is Jesus' explanation (v. 63) not considered to be _the key to understanding the meaning_ of Jesus' most difficult statement? If "the flesh counts for nothing," how can eating Jesus' flesh in a literal sense count for the most important thing: eternal life? If Jesus' words in verses 53-56 were "spirit and life," shouldn't we take them in a spiritual sense and not a literal one?
It is a plain fact that NO early church writing specifically states that the substances of bread and wine cease to exist and that they become the physical flesh and physical blood of Jesus (i.e., Transubstantiation). Roman Catholics are _required_ to believe this (even though a recent survey shows that one-half of them take a memorialist view, a view which the RCC anathematizes). But I can show you a number of early fathers who specifically stated that the substances of bread and wine _remain as bread and wine_ (i.e., Transubstantiation does not take place). Pope Gelasius so stated at the end of the 5th Century: “The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine do not cease. And assuredly the image and similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries” (Adversus Eutychen et Nestorium, 14). Do you understand what a "similitude" is? It's a similarity, a representation, an allegory.
Now, I will explain why you should have respect for the Protestant view of Communion. Since Protestants believe what Gelasius, Augustine, and other early churchmen said about it, we Protestants understand that the host is still bread. Some Protestants believe Christ is Really Present in a spiritual manner, while others think He is only represented and memorialized in a symbolic manner, but either way *the host continues to be bread; therefore we cannot in good conscience adore and worship the host, because doing so would be idolatry.* Here is how we Protestants view the issue:
_The Israelites created a calf of gold, declared it to be Almighty God, and worshiped it._ As punishment, Moses had the calf ground up and made the people ingest the gold.
_The Roman Catholics create wafers of bread, declare them to be Almighty God, rear them up in monstrances and worship them._ Then they ingest the bread.
Can you see why we Protestants cannot condone Transubstantiation and why we think it is evil?
Remember also that Jesus never said at the Last Supper, Do this to get saving grace from Me. He never said, Do this while believing that I am Really Present in the Eucharist elements. What did He say? "Do this _in remembrance_ of Me." Protestants obey Jesus when they take communion in remembrance of Him, and Catholics should respect that. After all, official RC doctrine says that the Protestants are 'daughters of Mother Church'. 😉
The Eucharist is THE Eternal Sacrifice.
Isn't this quite against the Baptist "memorial" view? As a Presbyterian, I can claim the Spiritual presence and sacramentally receive the grace. The Baptist view is "ordinance".
You believe spiritual prescence because you think is impossible that it could be Jesus real flesh and blood?
not all Baptists! Watch the full video and you will see my view
@@TruthUnites Sometimes, you seemed like a traditional Reformed Baptist. I think you are somewhat unique among Baptists. You seem to fall between Presbyterian and Baptist. Regardless, I am learning quite a bit.
The problem with the reformed view, and I say this as a protestant, is this.
Christ is present in the eucharist. The eucharist is a sacrifice. It is a different sacrifice than the one Christ offered on the cross.
Meaning Christ is offered within the elements as a different sacrifice from the one sacrifice that He offered before the Father. So the reformed view causes Christ to be offered in multiple sacrifices.
Whereas the Catholic view necessitates that since Christ is present in the sacrifice of the eucharist that is offered, and Christ's sacrifice was once and for all, it must be that same singular sacrifice that is brought present in the eucharist. As opposed to a different kind of sacrifice. He cannot be offered in multiple sacrifices.
Also, the Catholic view is very simple. Christ's sacrifice is made present in the eucharist. That's why they say re-presenting that sacrifice. It is made re-present. That's how the Catechism of the Catholic Church even renders this.
My best example that uses the exact same BIBLICAL language is a FLAG
1. A flag preaches a nation and it's constitution
2. The US flag is a reliving of 1776 in the pledge of allegiance
3. The flag is a legal body when an official flag is desecrated as an act of war or treason.
4. A legal memorial is enforced, not simply a mere memorial, this is more obvious in the military. (This is why demons would be required to legally respect the "host" not because it's an actual transubstantiation, but because it's a legal transubstantiation, BTW I don't like the word transubstantiation, it's ambiguous).
5. The authority to consecrate is in the act of representation, while we would prefer a flag made official by the Congress (kehilim or Knesset) a citizen can establish a legal flag in a territory for the purpose of an embassy this is sanctuary under a flag.
6. Making a flag legal requires respect to the rights and duties it represents
7. The flag must be available to all citizens
I don’t see any reason to stray from a Zwinglian Memorialist view, seems straight up what Jesus meant.
Ahhh… the old interpretation conundrum 😅
A memorialist view is a very mundane and easy teaching. But the disciples believed that holy communion was a very hard teaching
' On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" '
@@LoseBellyFatNow0 I’m not convinced that the Bread of Life discourse in John 6 has anything at all to do with the Last Supper or Communion. Totally separate.
@@LoseBellyFatNow0 It surprises me that so many people seem to think that the difficulty in John 6 stems from a literal understanding of "flesh and blood" and not the claim of Jesus to be the one who has "come down from heaven." In fact, the entire passage seems to be a protracted explanation of and rebuke against the unbelief of the crowd that followed Him. The difference between those who stayed and those who leave (giving us a clue as to what the "hard saying" was really all about) is that those who stay are the ones who believe that Jesus is "the Holy One of God."
In fact, if one reads the passage, it can be seen that the entire discussion of bread, hunger/thirst, food/drink, etc. is simply Jesus' way of taking their demand for another sign and turning it against them:
"So they said to him, “Then what sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform? Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” (Jn 6:30-31)
Jesus replies:
“I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe." (Jn. 6:35-36)
Notice, according to Jesus, the "eating" that will sate our hunger is coming to Him, and it is our belief in Him that is the "drinking" that quenches our thirst. To interpret eating and drinking, hunger and thirst, flesh and blood, bread and drink hyper-literally is to simply miss the actual point Jesus is trying to make, which is summed up in vss 43-47:
"Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me-not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life." (Jn.6:43-47)
@Bb Dl Because the Pope said so?
“When in doubt, quote Martin Chemnitz” Chemnitz work is the gold standard IMO. I read him weekly.
I think it is a categorical mistake to assume that Roman Catholics and Evangelicals are really saying the same thing here. An application of a historical sacrifice through faith is not a sacrifice. When we confess our sins to God we are applying his sacrifice but he is not being sacrificed. The Reformers saw the eucharist as a sacrifice insofar as it is a thanksgiving (eucharistia in Greek means "thanksgiving" and the psalms often speak of offering a "sacrifice of thanksgiving" or "praise"). There are other ways that an Evangelical can refer to the eucharist as a "sacrifice" (see Chemnitz) but not because Christ is really sacrificed.
Again the Jewish Passover from the Jewish perspective is totally ignored. Cant see the forest for the trees .
........you do realize that Jesus fulfilled passover, right? Why is that relevant.... pause and think before answering because you might realize the video *does address passover and other rituals that take away from the sufficiency of Christ.*
@Elisabet Zamora Incorrect. Passover was a ritual for sacrifice. If you believe he fulfilled the final sacrifice, passover is no longer valid. Christ fulfilled the Law meaning we don't have to do all the rituals to be with him, just as it was pre-sin.
The more I listen to this dialogue the more I get convinced to remain Catholic. Protestantism for me is just: do you believe this is a sacrifice? yes? that is fine, do you believe it isnt a sacrifice? No? that is fine too... and that is pretty much protestantism in a nutshell. Every is a possibility... it is up to you to decide...
2 Timothy 2:15
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”
Based
The scandal of personal interpretation
The early Church Fathers taught prayers for the dead and masses for the dead, gave aid to those suffering temporary punishments after death! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Matthew, I am aware of Eucharistic celebrations as commemorations for the dead in the patristic era, but where did church fathers commend them as propitiatory sacrifices for the dead?
Many "early church fathers" were also Pagan Philosophers. It's hard to ignore that.
@@TruthUnites as Christ died for the living and for the dead, because He went to Hades to free the souls of the just, the Eucharist is also an offering for the living AND for the dead.
@Bb Dl are you asking to show early support for thinking that something is an abomination, otherwise it is not an abomination?
@Bb Dl but these are prayers of commemoration…. You are now making his point for him.
Depends on the religion…the Romanish doctrine it clearly is, for Protestants No it is not. Do not undo the finality of the cross, also salvation is not dependent on taking part, we do this in remembrance of what Christ did for us….we do this to remember we have been washed and sanctified by the Holy Spirit, there is nothing we can do to earn this forgiveness. Treating this as a sacrifice is saying what Christ did was not enough and therefore is why the romish doctrine is rejected. It is no longer an alter but a table, we do not hold up the elements to be changed into his flesh and blood, Christ will return one day but not like this.
Jn 6 51-58 is clearly a sacrifice. What about Mal 1:11 Protestantism is heretical
@@geoffjs clearly it is not clear otherwise wars and reformations would not have occurred. keep reading especially until John 6 verse 63. This is why Christians do not follow the Romish teachings. Read also the feeding miracle before, (and cross reference with other gospels also) and you see in the feeding of the thousands Jesus is not interested in physical needs but spiritual needs…this passage in John you quote has no reference to the communion or last supper hence the historical split between Roman Catholic interpretation and the interpretation of the Holy catholic Church, aka the elect, or reformed theology.
@@Bruised-Reedyou prove the dishonesty or selectiveness of Protestantism. Jn 6 51-58 was the Last Supper. Read 1 Cor 10 16-17 and other texts. If you still disagree read the Early Fathers and finally research Eucharistic miracles than science can’t explain.
You didn’t comment on Mal 1:11 Without sacrificial worship, Protestantism has no church and proves it sterility to say nothing about the lack of unity Jn 17:21 and its heretical nature
To preempt the inevitable knee jerk reaction, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the unbloody REPRESENTATION of Calvary enacted at Jesus’ command every day in all places and at all times. The words daily bread in the Lord’s Prayer, in their original language refer to supernatural bread ie the Eucharist, but Protestants prefer the heresy of personal interpretation
Eucharistic miracles by Carlo Acutis Scientific evidence.
Stay away from catholicism.
Stay away from idolatry & fanaticism of men.
Follow Jesus, become a Christian.
Did you know if you say your name like 7 times in a row you will hear the theme from the pink panther. Dad da...dad da ...dad da, dad da, dad da , dad da, dad daaaaaaa, dad da da da da . Also Catholics are Christians
Oh boy
No, it's a hoax and blasphemy!
"It does not matter what theologians tell you today, it's what the Saints say. We follow the Holy Fathers and the Saints! We do not follow Professor so and so and Doctor so and so. That's not the authority in the [Orthodox] Church." Fr Peter Heers
Interesting discussion tho between those in the west
ua-cam.com/video/6KXtkl91sVw/v-deo.htmlsi=ZdbT3AzKOZ8cVwhQ
The Eucharist is openly showing the emptiness of the Protestant religion … but u guys the prots want to take up the Eucharist also… but u don’t want to come to the Catholic Church… this is bizarre .. no humility but a lot of intelligence for absolutely nothing …
Ortland the guy who teaches everything but humility .. when Christ taught us primarily humility …
The prots have turned their justification doctrine to the same as catholics … because they couldn’t sell their empty doctrine for long … but if asked they will come up with some technical nonsense by so called intellectuals like MacArthur …
I think there is no point in what Gavin does… what he does is simple , how can I get close enough to the ideas of the church because the fathers betray the fact that Protestantism was not the original church, no visible oneness , no obedience , no sacrifice , no table / altar , no presence of Christ with his bride …: the fathers will show u in a minute that Protestantism is false.. Gavin wants to clone the church without the humility and obedience which are needed to stay in the church … u can never be the body of Christ if u don’t have the one thing that signifies Christ , humility..
The very fact that he quotes some prot scholars on Eucharist is like me quoting my mother who wrote a poem to explain what poems are and the grammar of them , when u have Shakespeare and Wordsworth and Blake to explain … this idea of my nanny writes great poetry is absolute bull crap …
They are blinded by personal interpretation and pride but have no church and don’t use their intellect
Dr. Ortlund is in a bind, as Scripture ALONE is infallible, and no interpretation of any Protestant can therefore be infallible too! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
" no interpretation of any Protestant can therefore be infallible..."
I don't believe I've ever heard a Protestant claim such.
@@gardyloogubbins I have, as many Protestant Pastors claim that without a doubt. " this is My Body ", is not to be taken any way, except as a symbol or a spiritual presence, but definitely not bread into MY BODY.
Many also teach without a doubt, the woman in Revelation 12, is not Mary! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 “Without a doubt” and “With infallible certainty” are not the same thing.
An example: I have no doubts that I am my parents biological child. All evidence points that way: I look like them, I have a birth certificate, etc. But am I infallibly certain? No. I could have been adopted, documents could have been forged, I could have been switched at birth.
But, my inability to be infallibly certain doesn’t mean that I doubt my parentage. I believe I have true knowledge of the fact, even if it is not infallible knowledge.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that no one, save God Himself, can be said to possess infallible certainty.
That argumentation has already been debunked simply by way of your refusal to articulate the terms of your own argument. In the last two videos:
ua-cam.com/video/CTb7V3Fk73w/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/Ft4p2h6fTOM/v-deo.html
@@HisLivingStone241 Actually it has never ever been debunked! Inseed, Scripture ALONE is a man made tradition. Plus, no Protestant Pastor actually practices Scripture ALONE, as they place their own fallible interpretations above the infallible Holy Scriptures! Again, since Dr. Ortlund doesn't know the answer, you can try, "can anyone know with infallible certitude what Jesus Christ meant by "this IS MY BODY ", and who the Woman is in Revelation 12? You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
When you eat this bread...and drink this cup...you proclaimed the death (sacrifice) of the Lord...the drama epic of God's love to enable humanity (after Christ'ascension) to participate in the Calvary of God