“People love to dismiss baptists and sometimes we deserve it…” hahah love this topic and I’d love to see more of our Baptist brothers and sisters embracing a historical real presence view!
Well, most Baptists who embrace historical Christianity and Protestantism, then become Presbyterians. That's why there aren't that many reformed Baptists.
Eh. My grandparents and my father are Baptists. My grandmother hated Catholics thought they were devil worshippers lol, kinda funny to think about. We Went to their Baptist churches as a kid once in a while. To be honest when they did what they call communion they used grape juice and there was a lack of reverence. The used it to remind themselves of Jesus the symbology of it while totally missing (which I didn’t know then) the literal part of Jesus instituted at the Last Supper. I remember seeing it was like this is a bit weird. I didn’t grow up religious my grandparents were, my brothers and I were not. So is this now changing in the Baptist Church or is it just you hold a more traditional view of the Eucharist now personally?
@@catholicguy1073 Among Baptists, Gavin's view is rare. I would say that only 1% of Baptists hold this view. Most Baptists hold the "memorial view" which became rather a light view of the sacrament/ordinance. It's the result of American Christianity. The freedom of religion as a law is a double-edged sword. While it can promote more tolerance, it can also breed heresies. The largest heretical cults all originated in the US.
@@catholicguy1073 I think the point Gavin is trying to make in his video is that the memorialist view of Holy Communion (which you and I both have experienced sadly) is not necessarily the traditional Baptist view though it has become more common today. I hope that Baptists return to embracing the Reformed Spiritual Presence view. For one, as you alluded to, memorialism is just a sad & less powerful experience imo. And secondly, I do not think it is able to be defended historically.
That’s so funny! In the serious side: what do think it will take for American Baptistic churches to reclaim wine instead of grape juice? Prohibition was a long time ago!
Baptist Pastors have not received the Sacrament of Holy Orders from a Bishop of Apostolic Succession - Catholic and Orthodox Pastors only. Therefore Baptist Pastors do not have the faculty to consecrate the bread and wine to become the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
As someone who goes to a Baptist church and works at a Baptist university, I’ve never met anyone “on the ground” who holds anything other than the memorialist view. When faced with the idea that something more like what you’re talking about is, “Historically Baptist,” their answer is more or less that it doesn’t matter; it’s rejected as a, “Tradition of men,” and most contemporary Baptists have no problem with rejecting almost anything the early reformers taught if they feel it’s too Catholic sounding. All this is to say that the caricature isn’t unfair at all in my experience.
@@legacy242-47 my problem is that I also hold this position, and I’m not sure I think there’s a great way out of James with the Protestant view on justification. It doesn’t leave me with many options
Surely you don't live in Europe, if that was what you saw around you. A purely memorialist view is the exception among all Protestants here; at least, all affirm there is a power and sonething trancendental in this Act.
Sometimes I think we Evangelicals in general deny the Presence of Christ at the Table so strongly that one might wonder if we think it's the only place in Creation the Godhead is absent.
As a baptist, it’s very heartwarming to hear another baptist discuss Real Presence. Sometimes it can feel like I am an island in a sea when it comes to the sacraments
He is discussing a false definition of Real Presence and should have listened to the people who have already told him so. Transubstantiation, Real Presence, is what the early Church fathers taught and most importantly what Jesus Christ taught. At Catholic and Orthodox Holy Mass the bread and wine become the flesh, blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ (transubstantiation). Baptist's get bread and wine or juice. God bless you
@@Chris-wf6km Thanks Chris for saving me the time of having to explain this. He essentially said he believed in the real presence and then says it is NOT the real presence in the Eucharist, but in the "room", haha. Baptist brothers, please read the Church fathers for yourself. It's the same with the media; you have to see it for yourself to understand what type of spin others are putting on it. Be cunning as serpants.
Obviously some extraordinary is happening when the bread and wine are taken or there wouldn’t be a warning about taking it in an unworthy manner. It’s not literally the physical flesh. ie veins, cells etc. these are not visible. Jesus is everywhere that you can go in the universe but He says where 2 or 3 are gathered in my name I am there with you. He is somehow more with 2 or more than as usual.
@@cryptopotomus3948 The Eucharist Host is living physical flesh:- 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53 So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.” God bless you
Amazing as always, Dr. Ortlund! As someone within a non-denominational context, these videos are so informative and helpful for me thinking through my faith.
Thank you, pastor. I'm looking forward to reading those books on historic baptist sacramentalism. As a memorialist Baptist who is currently on the fence about Christ's Real Presence in the Supper, at this point in my discerning I agree with you that a true Christian does not necessarily need to believe in Real Presence for Real Presence to occur in their partaking of the Lord's Supper, if it's true. My support for this is that Jesus knows precisely who His sheep are, and He is a very Good Shepherd to feed, nourish, and provide for them wherever they may be.
I absolutely recommend diving into the reasons and arguments for real presence. It opens up a beautiful new avenue through which Christ loves us and draws us closer to himself
I feel like Gavin's work will in time move us all back towards what it is to be Christian, a unity of Faith, in Christ, with humble submission to His word and His spirit.
If our one authority for Christian teaching is scripture, then by default we have unity. Don't mistake fallible creatures getting things wrong here and there as being some kind of opposite of unity. I have unity with my wife, and we also disagree and various things. The groups that bring DISunity are precisely those groups that elevate their convictions to equality with the gospel and scripture itself. To the point of them anathemetizing everyone else out or excomunicating them out. What you are alluding to is not called unity, it's called conformity. Everybody must be made to bow to one single interpretation or understanding of every possible last little point where there may be a different among us. But this is not unity, this is a fairy tale. Those that know this is a fairy tale will offer yet another solution, they offer up a wishful thinking idea that "wouldn't it be nice if we just had ONE authority to declare every truth and they couldn't be wrong about anything?" But unfortunately that has a lot of issues, none the least is that all humans are fallible and make errors. And secondly, you end up with many many groups all claiming this position of absolute power on earth to declare every truth. In any case, in the real world, the fallen world such as it is, we have our one authority the holy scriptures, and our job is to seek unity DESPITE various tradition differences. Unity does not mean conformity.
Have you read Brant Pitre’s the Jewish roots of the Eucharist? I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on the points he makes. It seems that the only way for us to try to grasp the mystery of the sacrament of the Eucharist is to look at John 6 and the words of Christ at the last supper through a 1st century Jewish lens. If you’ve not read it please do and maybe you can make a video on it.
The Jews were about to celebrate the Passover at Jerusalem, in commemoration of the night of Israel's deliverance, when the destroying angel smote the homes of Egypt. In the paschal lamb God desired them to behold the Lamb of God, and *through the symbol receive Him* who gave Himself for the life of the world. But the Jews had come to make the symbol all-important, while its significance was unnoticed. They discerned not the Lord's body. The same truth that was symbolized in the paschal service was taught in the words of Christ. But it was still undiscerned. Now the rabbis exclaimed angrily, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?” They affected to understand His words *in the same literal sense* as did Nicodemus when he asked, “How can a man be born when he is old?” (John 3:4). To some extent they comprehended the meaning of Jesus, but they were not willing to acknowledge it. By *misconstruing* His words, they hoped to prejudice the people against Him. Christ *did not soften down* His symbolical representation. He reiterated the truth in yet stronger language: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, dwelleth in Me, and I in him.” To eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ is to receive Him as a personal Saviour, believing that He forgives our sins, and that we are complete in Him. It is by beholding His love, by dwelling upon it, by drinking it in, that we are to become partakers of His nature. What food is to the body, Christ must be to the soul. Food cannot benefit us unless we eat it, unless it becomes a part of our being. So Christ is of no value to us if we do not know Him as a personal Saviour. A theoretical knowledge will do us no good. We must feed upon Him, receive Him into the heart, so that His life becomes our life. His love, His grace, must be assimilated.
@@YajunYuanSDARather, the Jews had to EAT the passover lamb, or their firstborn would have died. And in John 6, the bread of life discourse, all those who heard him took him literally. None took him as speaking symbolically only. Christ is the Lamb of God. We have to eat the lamb. - it was a hard saying - who could take it? - the crowds left him - the Jews then wanted to kill him (Para 1, Ch 7)
As an Anglican (ex-Baptist), this is rather fascinating. I'd argue most Baptists do not view it the way you do, but its really refreshing to hear a classical Baptist understanding. I waffle between Cranmer's view and a more Anglo-Catholic understanding, but I'd agree that the mode in which Christ is present is less important than what we receive from Christ in the Eucharist.
I’m recently attending an Anglican Church after discovering in scripture that the lords supper was far more important then what I was initially led to believe in my Pentecostal church growing up. The verse that made me question the view I was raised with was 1 Corinthians 11:27. I was raised with the view that it’s only done in memorial.
@@joechillstudios its remembrance but also a very serious action of the regenerate. Didache 9.1 - (AD 100) Now, concerning the Eucharist, practice it as follows. " First, concerning the cup: We give thanks to you, our Father, for the holy vine of David your son, which you made known to us through Jesus your son, glory to you forever a Next, concerning the broken bread: We give thanks to you, our Father, for the life and knowledge which you made known to us through Jesus your son, glory to you forever b4 Just as this broken bread was being scattered over the mountains and being brought together it became one; likewise bring together your church from the ends of the earth into your kingdom, so that yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever cs But none shall eat or shall drink from your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; for also concerning this the Lord has said, "Do give not what is holy to the dogs." The Didache (AD 100): “On the Lord’s day assemble and break bread and give thanks, having first confessed your sins, that your sacrifice may be pure. If any have a dispute with his fellow, let him not come to the assembly till they be reconciled, that your sacrifice be not polluted. For this is the sacrifice spoken of by the Lord; ‘In every place and at every time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great king, said the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the Gentiles; (Mal. i. 11, 14).” This doesn’t refer to Jesus’ sacrifice, but to “your sacrifice.” The same Greek word for “sacrifice” (thusia) is used of Jesus’ sacrifice (Heb. 5:1), but it is also used of doing good deeds, praise, and financial giving (Heb. 13:15-16; Phil. 4:18). The same book also refers to the supper as the “cup” and the “bread,” and a means of remembering Jesus’ sacrifice in thanksgiving (Didache, 9).
I work in a Baptist church and have never heard anyone discuss the efficacy of baptism and the real presence of the Eucharist in this way. I’ve been wrestling with this for a while, as the Scriptures are clear that both are far greater than symbols. Thank you for your excellent explanation of the historic Baptist view. The Lord has used you to give me some credence in the Baptist perspective.
Baptist Pastors have not received the Sacrament of Holy Orders from a Bishop of Apostolic Succession - Catholic and Orthodox Pastors only. Therefore Baptist Pastors do not have the faculty to consecrate the bread and wine to become the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
Here is my writeup on Baptism. It may be of help as you wrestle. *The Old Testament Prefigures a greater New Testament reality: The Waters of Baptism are Salvific.* - Noah and his family were saved by the water and cleansed humanity of sin, the Ark representing the Church. - The Israelites were saved by water from Pharaoh’s army crossing the sea - The Israelites were again saved by water when Moses struck the Rock *God foretells his Spirit would someday reside not in Jerusalem’s temple built by man but within mankind himself:* _25 I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances (Ez 36)._ *St John the Baptist says that Jesus would come baptizing with the Holy Spirit:* _“I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire_ (Mat 3:11). _I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit’_ (Jn 1:33). *St Paul speaks to the New Testament fulfillment, through Baptism, our body being the temple of God’s Spirit.* _Do you not know that your body is the temple of the holy spirit within you, which you have from God (1 Cor 6:19)?_ *We receive the Holy Spirit through baptism, the external washing by water signifying (a sign, a symbol, but not a sign or symbol only) of an interior spiritual change within us.* *Born Anew (Again) - through baptism, we are “born again” scripturally* _3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicode′mus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit [baptism], he cannot enter the kingdom of God (Jn 3: 3,5)._ *Regenerated and Justified - All Sacraments are means of receiving his Grace (we are saved by Grace)* _when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, 6 which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life (Titus 3: 4-7)._ *Sanctified - the exterior sign of water signifies the interior spiritual change through baptism.* _11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God (1 Cor 6: 11)._ *Baptism Restores Sanctifying Grace and Cleanses Us of ALL Personal Sins* _And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name (Acts 22: 16).”_ *Baptism Saves Us - by having the Spirit of God in us; God can’t be any more explicit* - _“Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit [baptism], he cannot enter the kingdom of God (Jn 3: 5).”_ - _Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 3: 21)._ - _He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned_ (Mk 16: 16; believing / having faith means to follow all that Christ commanded. He commanded that Christians be baptized as a means of receiving his grace) *Note, Christian men taught this whole time exactly what scripture teaches. Examples below.* “Moreover, the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men’s being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration,-as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God.” Theopilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, 2: 16 (A.D. 181). *Worth repeating: How is does one receive repentance and remission of sins .... through the water and spirit (the laver or regeneration). BAPTISM.* “[W]hen they come to us and to the Church which is one, ought to be baptized, for the reason that it is a small matter to ‘lay hands on them that they may receive the Holy Ghost,’ unless they receive also the baptism of the Church. For then finally can they be fully sanctified, and be the sons of God, if they be born of each sacrament; since it is written, ‘Except a man be born again of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’…[O]nly baptism of the holy Church, by divine regeneration, for the kingdom of God, may be born of both sacraments, because it is written, ‘Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'” St. Cyprian, To Stephen, 71: 72 (A.D. 253). “We are circumcised not with a fleshly circumcision but with the circumcision of Christ, that is, we are born again into a new man; for, being buried with Him in His baptism, we must die to the old man, because the regeneration of baptism has the force of resurrection.” St. Hilary of Poitiers, Trinity, 9: 9 (A.D. 359). “This then is what it is to be born again of water and of the Spirit, the being made dead being effected in the water, while our life is wrought in us through the Spirit. In three immersions, then, and with three invocations, the great mystery of baptism is performed, to the end that the type of death may be fully figured, and that by the tradition of the divine knowledge the baptized may have their souls enlightened. It follows that if there is any grace in the water, it is not of the nature of the water, but of the presence of the Spirit.” St. Basil, On the Spirit, 15: 35 (A.D. 375).
I long for the day my church recognizes real presence and we can partake in proper respects to that reality. It grieves my heart to see this neglected.
@@not_milk The Bible, Tradition, and the Church. Asking why a normal person can't consecrate the Eucharist is like asking why a normal person can't pass spending for an expansion to the town park. Genesis 2:18 tells us that we are not meant to be alone, meaning that we are meant to form society. Within society there must be specialization; bakers will bake, teachers will teach. It is the job of a mayor to pass spending, it is the job of the priest to consecrate the Eucharist. The central job of a priest is to offer sacrifices to God on behalf of the faithful. In the Old Covenant, this took the form of animal sacrifice, and for the New Covenant this takes the form of the Son to His Father in mediation as our eternal High Priest. So really, the question is for you to answer since the original or default mode of sacrifice was done by specialists: Who says that the rule changed and now just anyone can perform the job of the priest? This is all not to mention that if just anyone were able to consecrate the host there would be an uncountable amount of offenses committed against the flesh and blood of the Lord. 1 Corinthians 11:20-30 records an account of some faithful at the church in Corinth who were abusing the consecrated host and then promptly becoming sick and dying. Seeing as this is how much the Father values His Son in the Eucharist, how could he possibly allow every Christian, no matter how sinful, improperly educated, heretical, or even mentally unbalanced to consecrate the host?
Dr. Ortlund, I can’t thank you enough for this video! As an evangelical who is starting to open my eyes to church history, and now a believer in real presence in the Eucharist for the past year, I have been looking for the answers you have provided! I do have a question on your last thought in the video. I would love to have a Bible study on this subject alone with a Bible study group I meet up with at my evangelical church. But I will say, I don’t know how well it will go over with the head leadership to do such a thing. What would be the best way to approach this carefully and respectfully in light of my Church’s emphasis on their memoralist view every Sunday? Thanks in advance.
thanks a lot! One possibility might be simply sending them a video like this one, and asking if they are open to further discussion. I think it is important to be respectful of the leadership so I am so glad you are thinking about that. God bless you!
I’m a Baptist who has always held to the Memorialist view but I’m open to learning. Where would you begin with a biblical case for the spiritual presence view. Memorialism leans heavily on the NT’s explicit purpose statements for Communion. “This do in remembrance…” “Show the Lord’s death…” Are there any texts that positively support spiritual presence?
When Jews did the Passover meal they were "reliving" their exile from Egypt. When Jesus does the "Do this in remembrance of me" he is exclaiming what they did with their Passover meal. Then obviously right after he says, "This is my body." John 6 before the last supper he is telling the crowd that his flesh becomes real food, and they denied him 5 times and he corrected them 5 times and they still left.
Gavin Would you be open to doing a series of videos that outline the historic Baptist views on the sacraments , church governance, and other important topics. I would love to see how much that historical Baptist tradition was still in the same umbrella theologically as the historic church and its magesterial Protestants
Brilliant video, Dr Ortlund. As a Lutheran, you are correct that I feel a little mis-characterised by your video. No hard feelings though. I think your video is the best comparative discussion on this topic I have ever seen. It did make me think, however, are we at the point we are trying to split the atom with this stuff?? I’m sure Christ himself doesn’t really mind, and probably isn’t taking sides over this topic.
If there is no faith in a real presence that involves the power of Holy Spirit transforming the substance beneath the outward appearance (accidence) of the bread, then all you are receiving is bread while believing subjectivity in Jesus words “this is my body.” I believe in the “Real Presence”, A Mysterious transformation of matter indeed! I believe in the power of Christ transformative Word! All throughout the gospel Jesus Christ spoke and miracles happen. Why can’t non Catholic Christians take Jesus at his word? Many Catholics, too. Sadly. The Eucharist IS Jesus’ Body and Blood, not in a “spiritual sense alone” but in a Sacrament.
How can Catholics say that Christ does not die again on the altar when the Council of Trent states that he is immolated in the Mass? Simple. "Immolate" does not mean "kill." It is a synonym for "sacrifice," a concept which does not require the sacrificial gift to be killed (Num. 8:11-21, Rom. 12:1). According to its root-words, "to immolate" means to sprinkle with sacrificial grits or meal. In ancient times the sacrificial gift was sprinkled with this meal as part of the ritual. Eventually the word "immolate," which originally referred to only part of the ceremony, was extended to cover the whole act of sacrifice, and so it became detached from its original meaning of "to sprinkle with meal" and became a synonym for sacrifice. Because sacrifices often involve killing, the term immolate can have this association, but that is not the way in which the Church is using it. This is obvious from the language Trent uses, that in the Mass "Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner" (session 22, ch. 2)--an unbloody manner being one that does not involve killing.
After reading the early Christians, than seeing my church throw the leftovers in the trash after service I promptly located a different church that had a more respectful Eucharistic celebration.
This highlights their symbolic only view. The bread never became his resurrected body. One won't find Christians doing such in the first 1500 years of Christianity. Here are examples of what the earliest Christians said, reflecting how scripture should be understood : St Ignatius of Antioch - a disciple of St John - “For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (A.D. 110-165). - St Ignatius is a great example of he (St Ignatius) who hears you (St John), hears me (Jesus) St. Cyril of Jerusalem - “Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man’s heart, to make his face to shine with oil, ‘strengthen thou thine heart,’ by partaking thereof as spiritual, and “make the face of thy soul to shine.”” Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350). St. Athanasius - “You will see the Levites bringing the loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made, it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wonderous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ ….When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body.” Sermon to the Newly Baptized, PG 26, 1325 (ante A.D. 373). St. Ambrose - “Then He added: ‘For My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink [indeed].’ Thou hearest Him speak of His Flesh and of His Blood, thou perceivest the sacred pledges, [conveying to us the merits and power] of the Lord’s death, and thou dishonourest His Godhead. Hear His own words: ‘A spirit hath not flesh and bones.’ Now we, as often as we receive the Sacramental Elements, which by the mysterious efficacy of holy prayer are transformed into the Flesh and the Blood, “do show the Lord’s Death.'” On the Christian Faith, 4, 10:125 (A.D. 380). St. Gregory of Nyssa - “Rightly, then, do we believe that now also the bread which is consecrated by the Word of God is changed into the Body of God the Word. For that Body was once, by implication, bread, but has been consecrated by the inhabitation of the Word that tabernacled in the flesh. Therefore, from the same cause as that by which the bread that was transformed in that Body was changed to a Divine potency, a similar result takes place now. For as in that case, too, the grace of the Word used to make holy the Body, the substance of which came of the bread, and in a manner was itself bread, so also in this case the bread, as says the Apostle, ‘is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer’; not that it advances by the process of eating to the stage of passing into the body of the Word, but it is at once changed into the body by means of the Word, as the Word itself said, ‘This is My Body.’” The Great Catechism, 37 (post A.D. 383). St. Augustine - “‘And was carried in His Own Hands:’ how ‘carried in His Own Hands’? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, ‘This is My Body.'” On the Psalms, 33:1, 10 (A.D. 392-418).
I find this a bit confusing. In what sense can you spiritually, substantially, and actually receive the flesh and blood of Jesus while also saying that we are not physically receiving it? How does one spiritually receive a physical thing? Those two things seem mutually exclusive. If I’m receiving something spiritually, then it’s not a physical thing I’m receiving. And if it’s not a physical thing, then it’s not actually Jesus’ flesh and blood, right? Just a point of contention that popped up while I was listening.
That doesn't clear things up. Besides words are just as intangible as spiritual things so that follows. What doesn't naturally follow is the connection between physical elements and the spiritual reality which can only be by faith ie the faith is what matters not the elementz
@@davidjanbaz7728 Jesus is referring to the source of knowledge, as he says earlier in the passage that none can come to Jesus unless the father draws him. Certainly we can’t say Jesus actually meant that HIS flesh is of no avail, given that it is his flesh being pierced on the cross that leads to our salvation. In any event, that seems to me to be a concession that the reformed view, or at least your view, is not actually a “real presence” view. If I’m wrong do correct me, I’d hate to misunderstand you.
@@sneakysnake2330 Jesus could have meant that his literal flesh is of no avail, but it is the spirit which gives life. For some very odd reason, you think eating his literal flesh, and drinking his literal blood is the all important point, but yet the spiritual reality, the way it rejuvenates our spirit is not the main point. That does not add to me. I know Catholics always insist that Jesus stated it literally, and ignore when he clarified, "the flesh profits nothing, but its' the spirit that gives life". Did Jesus mean it literally when he said if your eye offends you, cut it off. If your hand offends you cut it off. I'm sure your eye has offended you quite a number of times, so are you missing at least an eye? Pretty sure no, and for good reason.
This was one of the reasons I left the Baptists for Orthodoxy. If I had thought it were a live option, it might have staved it off. As an aside, in the Orthodox Church, every priest, deacon, teacher, et al I've heard has used the fire/metal analogy, has asserted that the elements really are changed, but that this change also does not involve a loss of their nature as bread and wine. And all of them insist that we are not to analyze or try to explain it. If I asked about the mouse scenario, I'd be told "That's none of your business!"
Hello Truth Unites. Many things have been written by many about what is understood as the Real Presence but I do not understand why is this concept necessary for our christian growth. Based on what Jesus said in the gospels, such as the gospel of Matthew 26 where it says : 28 for this is my blood of the[a] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.” The Passover meal was full of symbols which included bread, wine, herbs, lamb, etc. Jesus called the fruit of the vine what he called his blood so we can see that he was speaking in symbols. He was the Passover lamb which was going to be slaughter next day, and also the bread was a symbol of his body being marred and beaten for our salvation. In John 7:37-39, Jesus speaks of the Spirit which those who believed in him were to receive, also we know that by the Spirit is how we receive Living water, which is the spiritual life that comes from the Father. So why do we have to think that the living water comes anyother way except by the Spirit of the Father? There is nothing magycal that comes from bread and wine which are symbols only, no apostle taught what has been understood to be the Real presence. Our union with the Most High is by His Spirit which He promised to give to those who repent and believe the death and resurrection of Jesus, everything to be given by the Father comes from the Spirit, there is nothing that we receive outside ourselves. Unfortunately this idea has wrongly passed century after century as if it was true but it is not. The Passover meal represented the freedom from the Egyptians by the lamb's blood which was a type of what Jesus was going to do at Calvary. I think the symbol has become the real thing for many christians unfortunately.
My reading of Calvin left me confused. At one moment, he sounds very close to the Lutheran Confession. Another moment he says something like, "Faith goes beyond the sign and grasps the signified." This, as far as I can tell, does not acknowledge that the true and substantial body and blood of Christ Jesus are in the elements. Would Calvin, for example, say that all, be they worthy or unworthy communicants, receive the body and blood of Christ into their mouths? I understood that the Reformed would not say this, which raises the question in my mind, "In what sense is the presence Real or Objective if it isn't present, full stop, regardless of faith or unbelief"? Honest questions here. And Lutherans don't confess Consubstantiation, but Sacramental Union. That is what we say in our own Confessions.
I explained this position, the historic Baptist position to a Baptist and they accused me of supporting transubstantiation. I even explained that it is supported by the 1689 London Baptist Confession which I thought he affirmed but apparently he does not.
Great video, as always. Just as a recommendation; I'm Presbyterian, but I think Lutherans prefer the label Sacramental Union over Cosubstantiation, even if that can be somewhat vague
I don’t believe we’re missing out on Christ spiritual presence because we don’t hold to “real spiritual presence” of the Eucharist, I think it minimizes the dwelling of his Spirit already in us..
I would appreciate very much your response to the documented Eucharistic miracles. In particular, the research organized by Aimee Goodier, MD. After listening to her lectures, the evidence for transubstantiation appeared strong and I’ve not heard a Protestant response to these miracles. Thank you so much!
Yes, that would be very interesting to see Gavin respond to those researched and documented medical studies, which include the World Health Organization reports on the phenomenon of Eucharistic Miracles! I don’t think he wants to engage that research. Ask yourself this question, if God can create something out of nothing, through His Word (Jesus), when he said: “Let there be Light, and there was Light” ( Gen. 1:3), then why is it so difficult for Baptist to believe that God can transform something that already exists: bread, into something that is supernatural, and miraculous: Eucharist! The Baptist, and most Protestants, are Gnostic in their thinking: it’s the spirit alone that sets you free, the body (flesh) is dead. If that were true, the Incarnation would make no sense at all!
22 minutes in; well done! I agree with this view--and it's important, as you've emphasized, that there's a real mystical feasting. Calvin emphasizes the reception of the *substance* of the body and blood of Jesus through the bread and wine, which is received by faith.
But Jesus never said this is me present with bread and wine. He said this is my body and this is my blood. He said eat my flesh and drink my blood. Why must we doubt the words of Christ. Why can’t we see with eyes of faith? How does it make sense Protestants lost this belief and are now trying to regain it? Would Christ really allow his bride to teach falsehoods on something so important as this?
@johnbrion4565 Jesus also said he's a vine--that doesn't mean he's literally a vine (to beat a centuries old horse to death). John 6:35-37 -- Jesus identifies eating and drinking with faith, and in 1 Corinthians Paul calls the consecrated bread "bread". We'd say that Jesus can call the bread his body by metonymy--because his body and blood are sacramentally united and given to the recipient
@@anglicanaesthetics Jesus also in John 6 has a chance to clarify and instead doubles down and says unless you “gnaw on” (trogein in the original greek) the flesh of the son of man there is no life in you.” And the disciples left. He risked his whole ministry on this teaching. Sure he spoke metaphorically but not on this. Jesus was instituting a new Passover. He was the new Moses the Jews were waiting for. The last supper was the new Passover. For the Passover to be complete the lamb had to be eaten. Jesus is the new manna from heaven. The manna was a miraculous bread from heaven which was stored in the ark of the covenant. Jesus is the new manna which must be greater than the old. If the old manna was kept in the holiest place in Judaism how much greater is the new manna of the Logos made flesh? Even Catholics refer to the Eucharist as bread. They doesn’t mean we are saying it’s only bread. When we eat this bread and drink this cup we proclaim your death oh Lord until you come again. Paul said those who eat and drink unworthily must answer for the body and blood of the Lord.
I've also gone down this same journey and come to the same conviction. 2 questions please if you see this: 1. What do you think of grape juice instead of wine? That's what my church practices. 2. I think an understanding of the real presence of Christ affects your eschatology. My dispensational friends say the temple sacrifices in the millennium are a new kind of communion, so not real sacrifices,but a reminder. So if Christ is truly present at communion, surely He cannot once again be present in temple sacrifice. What do you think?
Wine and grape juice start their lives as the same substance, and differ only in the treatment applied to them (fermentation vs pasteurization) changing their eventual composition. Modern pasteurized grape juice was actually invented to provide a non-alcoholic communion drink to Methodist churches (Thomas Welch, founder of Welch’s grape juice, was a Methodist minister), the urban legend I heard growing up Methodist was that they did this for the benefit of alcoholics in the congregation, so they wouldn’t be tempted to relapse. The reality possibly has more to do with a general opposition to alcohol, but there’s also probably a grain of truth in the legend.
I just don’t get why a strictly symbolic view is supposedly insufficient or inferior to a “real presence” view, seeing that the Bible does not use the phrase “real presence.” To me it just smacks of signaling to Catholics that “Oh yeah well we have that too.” How is it more “real presence” than the presence of Christ at someone’s baptism? I don’t get it. Someone explain it to me like I’m five. If Jesus actual body and blood are not physically present there, then it should not be called “real presence.” Why all the effort to use or retain that phrase? I’m Protestant btw.
It’s not Dr. Michael Heiser covered communion and pointed out how late antiquity and medieval views moved away from the original context and understanding into Christ being uniquely present. I’m reality Christ is always present with us when we gather together in worship. Edit: Here are the videos of Michael Heiser breaking it down. ua-cam.com/video/3Ki-a0bLDZM/v-deo.htmlsi=fThkrNtNN6tn7Y2b ua-cam.com/video/KIaUa44zCNM/v-deo.htmlsi=NyizU57B7HKh5bET
The point of transubstantiation is that the bread and wine ARE the body and blood of Christ. They get transformed into the body and blood miraculously without appearing/seeming any different. It’s why some traditional Catholics do “Eucharist adoration”. Consubstantiation says that the body and blood of Christ appear (physically and spiritually) in the same place as the bread and wine and coexist in the same space as the bread and wine (of course, you can’t taste the difference). Spiritual presence says that the spiritual presence of the Lord enters the bread and wine, but the physical presence of Christ is in heaven. Memorialism says that no part of the bread and wine has any of God’s presence. It’s just for remembrance (head knowledge) only.
The reason why people would think that way is that if Communion is a way to experience the presence/grace of God, you’ve effectively cut that off. It just becomes a man made ritual that isn’t necessary, is kinda weird, and maybe we should just study that particular Scripture to remember it instead. Turning the practices of the faith into an opportunity to achieve head knowledge deadens the faith in my view. I go to a Chinese nondenominational church now, but I grew up as a Methodist.
I don't know if anyone will see this comment, but if you want to understand the catholic prospective on the lords supper, you should read. This is my Body by Bishop Barron
Gavin - I just wanted to point you to the current code of Canon Law. You should be able to google it since it is on the Vatican web site in English. See Canon 6 Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated: 1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917; ... 3/ any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code I have been told that this last sentence voids any and all anathemas from previous councils as they are considered a penal law. Anathemas were a disciplinary matter meant for Catholics in a certain historical context. The term Anathema is no longer used in the current code of canon law. This does not mean its suddenly OK to teach that salvation is by faith alone now in the Catholic Church. The positive teaching of the Catholic Church on salvation still applies. But the canon proclaiming the anathemas no longer applies as it was a disciplinary matter. You have raised this as an issue for you for a while now, and I thought I would try to make this clear for you. God bless, Daniel
Gavin, can you clarify to this long-term Memorialist: What precisely is experienced by the participant in the “Real Presence” view? I’ve read all the great quotes (that you supply) about the spiritual and non-carnal partaking of Christ. But in terms of real-world experience, what is the noticeable impact? For hypothetical example: - Person A never participates in Communion. - Person B is a monthly Memorialist. - Person C participates monthly and with active faith embracing Real Presence. - Person D participates in Real Presence weekly. - Person E goes to all 3 morning services to get yet more of Christ weekly. - Person F skipped church Sunday and missed out. What actual distinctions are there in the life, faith, spiritual growth, and worshiping lives of these individuals? Are we prepared to say that over time the spirituality will be deeper for Person E over D over C over B over Person A? And that person F was somehow debilitated by missing this past Sunday? Is it simply like other opportunities to grow (I.e. listening to sermons, doing Bible study, engaging God relationally in prayer, worshiping meaningfully, serving sacrificially, loving another…) where we generally grow via participation and generally stagnate from our lack of participating? Or is there something unique here in a truly tangible sense that is demonstrable and traceable? Podcast topic opportunity?
La comunión es un sacramento, vía por la que la gracia de Dios actúa. Evidentemente influye en las personas. Los protestantes al no recibirla, ni considerarlo sacramento,están siendo privados de la gracia de Dios.
The Foursquare church officially holds to the Calvinist view that when the elements are received by faith real communion is experienced and it mediates to the believer the spiritual benefits of Christ’s death.
A friend was just asking about how real presence works and I had intended to send him your earlier video on it but now I'll use this one too! Real presence is absolutely something all Protestants should embrace as a beautiful and integral part of worship.
What would you do if you truly believe that Jesus is present in the eucharist?, would you not bow and prostrate yourself before Christ, would that not be so awesome, Christ really present in the church.. Would that not be the central worship for all churches, to break bread with Christ. Didache (90AD) "The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles" - the earliest written catechism. The Lords instruction on how to worship Him: "On the Lord's Day gather together, break bread and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure - - -"
@@jotunman627 Well there are parts of what you said that I very much affirm - we should give thanks to God with marvelous awe at his mercy and love for us to give us the Lord's Supper as a way of drawing closer to him, but no I would not bow in reverence to the bread and wine because I do not think that is the proper response laid out in scripture, or in the passages that you quoted. I very much agree with that last one that you quoted though, and it was my pleasure to participate in that very thing earlier today, giving thanks to him after confessing my sins, with many other believers, and then participating in the Lord's Supper together.
@@tategarrett3042 Catholics treat the consecrated communion host as the most sacred thing in the world. For Catholics “going to Adoration,” is referring to Eucharistic Adoration. Which is the worship of the Eucharist outside of the Mass. The Eucharistic Host is displayed in a monstrance on the altar so that all can see and pray in the presence of Christ. - To be actually with Christ, in prayer. In Garabandal, a question was asked on where the angels got the communion host that was given to the children, Mary answered it was taken from the tabernacle of the nearby church. Even an angel cannot consecrate a host. Satanist steal consecrated communion host to use in their black mass to mock and dishonor Christ. Their entire service is a mockery of the Catholic Mass. Most Satanists and real Witches can discern a Consecrated Host among thousands of unconsecrated hosts. - They are able to know - “Because of the burning hate I would feel toward that host, apart from all the others.” - a quote from a real Satanist
@@jotunman627 I think that does a good job of showing what Protestant concerns are about turning the Lord's Supper into a source of idolatry in a sense in which the bread and wine become objects of adoration and even talismans to be venerated. This seems to be a clear abuse of the Lord's Supper which is meant to be consumed frequently and in both kinds by all those who profess Christ and follow him wholeheartedly. It is interesting that Satanists have at times done such things to and with the bread but I would be cautious in drawing conclusions based on that since they are, well, demon-worshipers.
I am new to the Christian faith and was looking at Orthodox Christianity but I just can’t get past the icons / idols. Reading the Bible I just can’t rationalize this practice. I’m enjoying this channel, but I’m having a hard time finding a church.
Let us not forget why our reformers were burned for denying carnal presence in transubstantiation… JC Ryle refuted transubstantiation in “Why our reformers were burned” page 33 1.) You spoil the blessed doctrine of Christ’s finished work when he died on the cross. A sacrifice that needs to be repeated is not a perfect and complete thing. 2.) You spoil the scriptural doctrine of the Christian ministry. You exalt sinful men into the position of mediators between God and man. 3.) You give to the sacramental elements of bread and wine an honor and veneration they were never meant to receive, and produce an idolatry to be abhorred of faithful Christians 4.) You overthrow the true doctrine of Christ’s human nature. If the body born of the Virgin Mary can be in more places than one at the same time, it is not a body like our own, and Jesus was not “the second Adam” in the truth of our nature
Thanks for getting this video out. As a lifelong Baptist, then transitioning into an Anglican Church for a year, it struck me just how much I heard within my Baptist churches everything the Lord's Supper was NOT, instead of all the beauty that it truly is. It cheapened my view of it (though the fear of taking it unworthily was ever present) until I understood it in a different light within the Anglican Church. I appreciated their use of an actual unleavened bread loaf and actual wine (as opposed to Welch's Grape Juice 🤦). But those elements may perhaps be more secondary. I'm curious - if you'd be willing to share on here - how often you administer it within your congregation and how frequently you believe it should be given. Again, I was shocked to learn that Anglicans receive communion every Sunday, whereas in the Baptist churches I was a part of only did it maybe once a month, possibly less. The constant question I got asked from Baptist friends was, "Didn't that diminish its importance for you, taking it every week?" If anything though, it enhanced my view of the Lord's Supper, receiving it weekly. Any way, sorry for the ramble, but just some things I've been thinking through since early 2022. Appreciate all the time and effort you put into these very informative videos!
Those are valid questions. Many protestant churches do not value it enough. The Catholic view of it being the literal body and blood and stressing it so much frankly icks me out. They've brought it to cannabilism. I've had the occasional honest Catholic even share they share the same view. Yet, the constant belief that it is literally his body has kept the Catholics and Orthodox to reverence it more. I can reverence it just as much w/ a deeper understanding of it. It is so much more than Jesus' flesh. It is the meeting of the old and new covenant. It is what God instructed the Jews to do w/ their atonement sacrifices, that they also ate for thousands of years. it is the whole congregation doing it in unision, showing Christ in us and we in him. Protestant communion shows this ritual better in that last respect, because they do partake of most Holy Communion in unision, unlike the Catholic assembly line method. Plus, we have never lost the ritual of taking both kinds, as Catholics have. I've always found that odd. They reverence the Eucharist so much, and consider their method so superior, yet they don't take both kinds, and their form of ritual has vastly changed from the biblical model, which is clearly laid out.
Until the Liturgical Renewal Movement of the '60s and '70s, many Anglicans (Episcopalians then) didn't celebrate Holy Communion weekly either. Morning Prayer was a common service on Sunday morning. When they did have communion, they would have "Morning Prayer with Holy Communion". It took a while, and the new BCP 1979, for Holy Communion to be restored as the principal service on Sunday morning. It seems normal now, but it took almost a generation for the change to take hold. See, so there's hope for the Baptists after all!
@@saintejeannedarc9460 You said: "The Catholic view of it being the literal body and blood and stressing it so much frankly icks me out." Catholics treat the consecrated communion host as the most sacred thing in the world. Eucharistic Adoration is where in the Eucharistic Host is displayed in a monstrance on the altar so that all can see and pray in the presence of Christ. - To be actually with Christ, in prayer. In Garabandal, a question was asked on where the angels got the communion host that was given to the children. Mary answered it was taken from the tabernacle of the nearby church. Even an angel cannot consecrate a host. Satanist steal consecrated communion host to use in their black mass to mock and dishonor Christ. Their entire service is a mockery of the Catholic Mass. Most Satanists and real Witches can discern a Consecrated Host among thousands of unconsecrated hosts. - They are able to know - “Because of the burning hate I would feel toward that host, apart from all the others.” - a quote from a real Satanist.
Great video as always. But you shouldn’t drop bombs about spiritual presence being closer to Transubstantiation than Consubstantiation without telling us why! 😂 Seriously though, looking forward to the director’s cut of this video with more detail.
When you say in 3:56 that Christ's physical body is locally present in heaven and that doesn't change, what scriptures would you point to in support of this? I just find this idea to be a little silly - as if Jesus couldn't transcend space and be present physically in the sacrament. Certainly he ascended to "fill all things" and IN him all things hold together. He is God isn't he? What prevents Him from sharing his divine attributes with his human nature? (genuine question)
Gavin, I very much appreciate your videos. They are always clear, well constructed, and sincere. Your love for our Lord shines brightly, and His love shines through you. Have a wonderful Thanksgiving!
The first Ark contained the Word of God in Stone, the Manna that fed God's people, Mary's body contained the Word Enfleshed, the Bread of Life. Take and Eat 🙏
Thank you so much for this. Lately, as a baptist I’ve been on the outside of what the members of my church believe and see in God’s word bc I have been studying God’s word with eyes of the Holy Spirit and hoping they will begin to see the same but I’m afraid it’s putting me outside. This is one of those topics that needs more study and historic understanding that most Christians don’t want to do or have been told not to do or you become a heretic.
Check out Brant Pitre's book, "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist" and "The Lamb's Supper" by Scott Hahn. Bishop Barron has a couple of videos on the Real Presence on his UA-cam channel.
Could you clarify what constitutes a ‘valid church’, as the husband and father of my family, do I need to be ‘ordained’ to presenting communion to my family? Also if one is at a liberal church with a lesbian trans pastor who says Jesus wasn't a real person and they hold communion and I was there and took communion would I receive?
Lutheran here. Yeah, Consubstantiation is how the Reformed like to describe our Eucharistic theology. It's better, though, just to imagine the intemperate Luther yelling, "Hoc est corpus meum!" (this is my body) at Marburg. That pretty much gets to the point.
I was a reformed Baptist until recently who had a "spiritual presence" view of the Lord's supper. I am now a Lutheran, in part because of their view on Baptism and the Lord's Supper were specifically pursuasive. I have a few points I think would be of benefit to Dr. Ortland to make this conversation a little bit more clear: A better way of thinking about broad categories of views of the sacraments is: (1) Memorial Feast (Zwingli); (2) Spiritual Presence (Calvin); and (3) Physical Presence (Lutherans, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Orthodox). Within the third category in particular (but in some cases, also, within the second) there is a question of //what// you hold to by saying "Physical Presence." There is the "dogmatic theory" perspective; i.e., you must believe physical presence means a certain thing. The Roman Catholics have this viewpoint, and they specifically tie the transubstantiation view as infallible dogma. The second view we could call the "guard rail" perspective; i.e., you must view physical presence but you can have variation as to the "how" behind it. As a Lutheran, this is our viewpoint. You must hold "the body and blood of Christ are truly present." AC Art. X. "They are truly administered with those things that are seen, bread and wine." Ap Art. X. That being said, and in large part because of the Reformed Church, a Lutheran must hold that "Christ's body and blood are received with the bread and wine, not only spiritually through faith, but also orally. Yet not in a 'Capernaitic' way, but in a supernatural, heavenly way, because of the sacramental union." Ep. Art. VII, Aff. para. 6. As such a Lutheran may not hold to a view where we "eat[] Christ's body, as though His flesh were torn with the teeth and digested like other foods." The short hand for this view is "in, with, and under" to describe these guard rails. The reason why Lutherans tend to reject "consubstantiation" is because that viewpoint is actually outside the guard rails (as it implies a mixing of the two substances, which this formulation rejects). Additionally, Lutherans tend to reject transubstantiation because it implies rejecting a true presence of the elements themselves. Another group that utilizes this "guard rail" approach is the Orthodox churches. It is not my idea to discuss, but it is my understanding they require one to confess it is a divine, mysterious, miracle. Due to this, some may argue more detailed explanations (including transubstantiation) should not be held (because it would reject the mysteriousness of the sacrament). The important idea behind the "guard rail" approach is a recognition that there are some ways to formulate or explain what we mean by physical presence that could lead one astray, but because of the mysterious nature of the union between Christ and the elements we cannot definitely say it occurs a specific way. The final view, which may be more in theory, is an open view. This is not necessarily a confessional viewpoint, but it instead is where a church's only requirement is that a person confesses that Christ is more than spiritually present. Church's from the Pietist traditions appear to take this viewpoint, but I have also discovered some LCMS churches are beginning to take this approach under the idea of a "Close Table." The Anglican Church, in some ways, has this view by default insofar as a minister takes a physical presence approach (since they do not have any official stance on the matter).
Memorial for Jews means that you live again the event that occurred in the past. You are connecting the Present with the Past. During the Mass that is a Memorial you are connecting the Present with the moment when Jesus sacrificed. The Sacrificed of Jesus started with the Last Supper and continue when He died in the Cross, then it is the real presence of Jesus in the bred and wine.
I have believed, for some time now, that Christ is really and truly spiritually present, not in the elements themselves, but in the event; in the"doing" of communion/the supper. Thoughts on this?
The Orthodox view is similar to the RC view but we refuse to use Aristotelian categories of thought. We just say, “it’s the real presence” and leave it at that. There’s no rationalization of how it happens, or even when the presence happens. When it comes to the 1672 confession, that’s a hotly debated document since it also affirms purgatory and we do not believe in that. We also do not believe in infant damnation, which it implicitly implies as well. (As a universalist I obviously don’t believe this but even your most hardline Orthodox theologian will agree with this.)
At 20:09 you said that the “spiritual presence view leaves open the mechanics of how this happens.” Yet I think even the spiritual presence view stipulates about mystical matters more than we can responsibly claim. This is why Orthodoxy just leaves it as a Holy Mystery and does not intrude further.
Thank you so much Dr. Ortlund! As a Baptist who spent time in the Episcopalian Church then back to Baptist, I sincerely missed the liturgy and the Eucharistic service. I LOVE #4! I decided I was taking Christ’s body and blood in some way even in my memorialist Baptist church. It occurred to me that what I was really doing was rejecting *sacerdotalism.* I receive the Real Presence by *faith*, even in a memorialist church, even in grape juice. I had no idea about this part of Baptist history, thank you so much again.
Nobody says Christ was God and Man "in a spiritual sense only." If Christ can be fully God and fully Man, the Eucharist can be fully Christ and fully bread. I don't find this complicated.
I love this. Thanks, Gavin! I'm still seeking the truth on this. But a spiritual Real Presence makes the most sense to me. Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation make the least in my mind. Catholics have told me, "Enjoy your snack." How rude! Even if you hold the memorialist point of view, I don't know any church that takes Jesus' sacrifice for our sins lightly. Of course we all read John 6 and came to different conclusions, but to me, vs 63 is the ringer... "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you-they are full of the Spirit and life." When people say they're really eating the flesh, I quote that verse. Jesus is saying it's not a matter of flesh, but a spiritual matter. Next time I receive the elements I'll come into it with a different mindset and see what the Spirit has for me.
The verses in John 6 that precede this verse, Jesus constantly refers to “my” flesh. He is talking about HIS body. The verse you quote he talks about “the” flesh. He is talking about something completely different. Protestants misuse this verse.
@@billmartin3561 If we look at it all in context... On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you-they are full of the Spirit and life. --- So, they were still discussing what Jesus said just seconds before. Confirmed when he says, "the words I have spoken to you..." It's all still a part of the "bread of life" teaching that he just provided. God bless.
@@billmartin3561 Catholic conveniently ignore this verse, because it just doesn't fit w/ the added and not biblical doctrine of transubstantiation. So it's just a tosser.
@@billmartin3561 Do you really think Jesus was teaching about taking communion, a whole year before the Last Supper took place? If you read the entire chapter carefully, you might notice the one thing Jesus repeats most often (the point He's trying to get across to these spiritually resistant people who want more free food) is that they need to *believe in Him.* See verses 28-29, 35, 40, and 47.
"The flesh" is a phrase and it is not the same as "my flesh". The flesh means the thinking and the feelings of being a human being. Because your logical explanation of John chapter 6 is based on human thinking based on human observation, you can't comprehend how Jesus could give his flesh to eat even when Jesus compared it with the manna. You reasoning is based on "the flesh" Jesus' teaching that he was the bread sent down from heaven and we must eat it, that's a spiritual teaching. Catholic's interpretation is a spiritual teaching, not a teaching of the flesh.
Reformed Baptist for 20 years now Lutheran. I made the move due to Lutheranism balancing the Father's with Scripture, and the important point of discerning the Lord’s Body in the Supper.
It was your content on this subject that opened my eyes to real presence within the eucharist, and now communion Sunday is my favorite Sunday of the month! God bless you richly.
The plain word's in Scripture, the teachings of the early Church Fathers and God's Eucharistic miracles demonstrate that both transubstantiation and Apostolic Succession are reality. If you want to obey God and eat the flesh and drink the blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ then be Catholic or Orthodox.
Dr Ortlund! Catholic here. This is a very informative and well done exposition on Baptist views of the real presence! Far from disagreeing or "hating" what you were just about to say, I would actually suggest you flip-flop 2 and 3! I fully agree that 2 and 4 are far and away the closest of the four types you lay out! And it's obvious. Under option 4, we (Catholics (and I believe Orthodox as well)) believe that Christ is indeed present spiritually in the Eucharist! I don't disagree with your statements on the kind of "broader union with Christ" and "feasting on Christ" apart from the Eucharist. Of course, we feast on Christ in his words as well. Of course, Christ's presence is far more than just spiritual It's almost ironic, when you say (in section three) that Catholics have to "read in" transubstantiation or that we somehow believe that all Church Fathers were always in 100 percent accord. They were not! For example, Justin Martyr presents the more Catholic theory: For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change (transmutation) of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus. - St. Justin Martyr First Apology 66 And for every Theodoret that seems to deny transubstantiation or change in nature, we can propose an Irenaeus, a Tertullian, an Origen, a Cyril or Jerusalem, an Ambrose, and the list goes on, who all teach what will eventually come to be understood as transubstantiation. As always, whenever we dabble in the deep waters of the Fathers, we must always consider two things: does any particular statement made by a Church Father accord with the teaching of the Church?; and does that statement follow from and accord with scripture? The Apostolic Churches are fundamentally scripture and tradition oriented, but this doesn't mean we take the Fathers AS scripture. So what did Jesus say and do about this matter? He says more than once ego eimi ho artos ho katabas ek tou ouranou --- I am the bread having come down from heaven. And the people who heard him sounded somewhat like Theodoret: is this not Joseph's son? How is it he's saying he came down from heaven! Jesus told them to stop grousing and grumbling. And then he lays down his amen amen lego humin --- truly truly I tell you: ego eimi ho artos tes zoes --- I am the bread of life. He intensified! Ego eimi ho artos ho zon --- I am the living bread! Then he nails it, saying of this bread that he gives: he sarx mou --- my flesh. This is meat. Red meat. Not an impossible burger but 100% animal flesh. And, like Theodoret, they continued to grouse and grumble, arguing that he can't possibly mean actual sarka --- flesh! And Jesus lays out yet another amen amen lego humin --- truly truly I say to you! Ean me phagete ten sarka tou Houiou tou anthropou, kai piete autou to haima --- if you shall not have eaten the flesh of the Son of man and drunken his blood... He gar sarx mou alethes estin brosis, kai to haima mou alethes estin posis --- for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. And he hammers home AGAIN that this is the bread coming down from heaven. I always write out the Greek so that we can see clearly what the scripture actually reported. Here John is not saying that the bread is bread and the wine is wine, remaining unchanged. He is saying that Christ IS the bread and that the bread is REAL FLESH --- meat --- and that the wine is REAL BLOOD. It is carnal. It is local. The bread and the wine change. Very fundamentally. As always, I rejoice whenever any kind of Protestant article of belief or doctrine of faith approaches that of the Church! It is a sign of fraternity. And on the spiritual real presence, I think we share some warm fraternity here! For example, when I participate in the liturgy from home, the priest always makes provision for precisely this --- a spiritual communion for those of us who can't be physically present. But it is also a sign of broken unity between Baptists and Apostolic Christians. While the spiritual real presence is, as I would argue, a true understanding, it is not the full understanding as taught by the Church, upheld by many Fathers and as proclaimed in the Gospel and handed down by the Apostles, even beginning with Paul. On the matter of the mouse or the unbaptised eating the body, I think I'd concur on the yes and no nature of that question! I'd say that, yes the mouse is eating our lord's body --- but he's a mouse and can neither eat Christ beneficially nor detrimentally. For the unbaptised, who is completely and utterly ignorant of what the body of Christ is, I think his situation would be more like the mouse's. For a Christian who rejects the Apostolic faith, but acting within his own Protestant context, I'd say he's not eating Christ's body at all, so it really is a matter of faith whether he's just eating a cracker that one can get in the grocery or a cracker that has some "added" symbolism such as you mentioned early in your video. The only way I'd say that a Protestant can get into any kind of trouble is if he, knowing what the Church teaches, entered a Catholic liturgy and took the Eucharist knowing that he rejects what the Eucharist actually is. I can't imagine any Protestant actually doing this --- it would be insulting to Jesus, it would be an insult to the Catholics around him and it would be an insult to his own conscience! This would be a highly unworthy reception of Christ's body, and this is literally why we (Catholics) refuse the open communion theory that many Protestants share. We do it for your own good!, so that you won't accidentally or even piously participate in something that you don't believe in. It's also why we can not take communion in any Protestant church. One other thing to consider, Gavin, as a sort of "hostile witness" is the curious practice of (some) Satanists who steal consecrated hosts from Catholic churches. I won't say what they do with the body, but it is a compelling witness to the physical real presence that even the guys on the other team recognise and believe that Christ is bodily present in the Eucharist. From what I understand, they don't steal at all from Protestant churches and when taking from Catholic churches are careful not to take the unconsecrated hosts from the storage cupboard, but go straight to the tabernacle in stead. In the end, I think you make a good case for a broader understanding of various modes of interacting with and consuming Christ --- and I think these are modes that Baptist and Catholic alike agree on, and I for one would argue that Baptists clearly receive grace within their understanding of the lord's supper. But there is always more! You kind of keep shying away from the obvious truth, which is that while spiritual real presence is a thing, it's not the whole thing. If you posit that the Catholic has to "read transubstantiation into" the Eucharist, I'd argue that the Baptist has to either close his eyes or "read transubstantiation out of" the Eucharist.
I love your analysis but you included practically no biblical references for what is the proper biblical perspective. What the Church fathers thought is interesting but it’s of little to no significance if it doesn’t align with the teachings of the Bible.
Well. I’ve always been looking for permission to hold this view as a Reformed Baptist. And wouldn’t you know it, it’s in 1689! The more you know. Baptists need to look more to church history on issues like this!
I like your approach. Good theology should exist in order to combat bad theology, but really pursuing Christ as you find Him in the gospel is more important than getting all the theological details in order.
I would say it is a true presence rather than a real presence. What I mean by that is Catholics and others say for a real presence to be true Christ must be present actually in the elements. What I would say is Christ is not present in but through the elements which is what Gavin was getting at. I believe Christ is truly present through our participation in remembering him.
You might be the first Catholic I've seen to say this. There are a number of protestants that recognize this, but almost every Catholic I've encountered online about loses it over this and will launch into a big argument about it's all literally Christ's body and blood and it invariably turns into a big ordeal to triumph in this regard. This thread will turn into that soon enough.
@@saintejeannedarc9460, a Catholic priest literally says this at every single mass. "Through your goodness we have this wine to offer. It will become for us our spiritual drink."
@@brettsalkeld9735 Then it must be a traditional holdover from before the doctrine of transubstantiation became entrenched. If the priest even calls it spiritual drink, not sure why online Catholics argue so stridently against any mention of the host being spiritual nourishment then.
@@saintejeannedarc9460, many Catholics who devote their time to online sparring don't know the tradition as well as they think they do. So that's one factor. Another is that, since the Reformation, many Catholics will reflexively reject something they imagine to be Protestant without actually looking to see if it might be a point of commonality rather than a point of contention. One thing I love about Dr. Ortlund's work (and that he seems to appreciate about mine) is that we both refuse to be separated from one another by caricatures of the others position. "Spiritual" presence has come to operate, in the minds of many Catholics and Protestants, as something "less" than Real Presence. And so Catholics often assume it must be unCatholic. But "spiritual" is a perfectly acceptable adjective for Christ's Eucharistic presence, alongside "real," "true," "substantial," or "sacramental."
Ive read the 1689 LBC many times and missed the part about spiritual presence every time. Thank you for bringing this up as it forced me to read it again and see what I missed before.
Dear Gavin [PLEASE READ :) ]-- One thing I've always valued highly about your videos is the experience of so to speak spending time with you -- having you come into my home and talk a while. I'd therefore like to cast a vote for your not using the video technique of putting in little jump cuts. I know it's popular, but it makes it like I'm watching an edited video of you rather than having you talk to me. (Of course, it IS an edited video in any case, basically, but you know what I mean.) I realize you tend to be concerned about your videos not lasting too long, but: (a.) Is that really an issue with your viewers -- if so, I'm so surprised! (b.) I hope so much there's a way for you to be happy with your videos' length without the jump cuts! In any case, I'm grateful for your work and your gentle manner. -- Lee
I haven't noticed yet in this one, and haven't really noticed it in others. We know he is very strapped for time and has 5 kids. So there's bound to be times when a kid comes in, or some family matter comes up, and he has to continue after. I'm pretty sure he doesn't edit them in for the sake of it. I can't even watch videos where they do constant jump cuts. Too distracting, and when it was super trendy, it made me a bit dizzy.
Question: if the term "real presence was coined by the church and given a meaning, then why do those whom reject the meaning the church gave to the term still use the same term "real presence" to refer to something different!? Why not call it "Spiritual presence" Been honest seems to be quite deceptive tactic of language manipulation..... We all know too well about that today
Yeah , I don't think it's deceptive in nature, I think the people who subscribe to this view do honestly believe in real presence. However it does seem counter intuitive to intentionally change the definition of a pre established term to make it seem like you're being connected with tradition.
One question, do you believe that children should not partake of Communion since they may not have faith? Mark 10:14: "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Thank you!
Self-Identification is a serious problem. If the personal experience has power over the reality of a communal ritual then by definition there can't be "real presence". The woman priesthood issue could then just be decided by saying to oneself that the priest is female, regardless of the reality. A wild tiger gets inside your church, one decides their inner understanding of the reality of the presence of the tiger does so at their own peril. Moses didn't receive an open ended phenomenon. He encountered Christ humbly and then based on that encounter, received teaching.
I'm rather inclined to agree with you when you say, " If the personal experience has power over the reality of a communal ritual then by definition there can't be "real presence"." I think the real presence of Christ is in the believer in/follower of Christ, whether that believer/follower is taking communion or just living life. Romans 8:9-10; 2 Cor. 13:5.
As a subdeacon in Byzantine Catholic who grew up in a Dutch Calvinist tradition I find this video to be honest and engaging with truth. Thank you for your sincerity in pursuing truth. St Theodoret's writings on Eranistes written in 447 is explicitly condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council of Second Constantinople in 553. But even if Calvinists don't accept 553 then the text still problematic because in same paragraph it supports veneration of icon as the image represents the object depicted. Brett Salkeld did an excellent analysis explaining that transubstantiation is not a physical change. He pointed out that had this was the case then after consuming the Eucharist it can't be discarded in toilet because it's holy. But rather because the transelementation is metaphysical then once the physical forms cease then there's no more metaphysical transformation. Transubstantiation is not about physical transformation. In fact it's impossible because had that been the case then it would be literally cannibalism. Rather it's metaphysical transformation whereby the perceptible properties remain. Similar to incarnation. Union of physical nature and metaphysical nature. Analogous to metal ignited by fire. The physical property remain (accidental nature) but it has been transubstantiated into new metaphysical nature as fire sword. Transubstantiation and incarnation don't deny the existence of physical nature (bread, wine, body, and soul) but rather argue it has been transformed into new metaphysical nature. In theosis the old man is gone and entirely replaced metaphysically by the new man wholly deified. Another issue with Calvinist real presence is its denial of St Cyril's second letter which was dogmatized at Ephesus on the Eucharistic adoration of the unbloody sacrifice. R C Sproul had a video explaining why a sacrifice even though unbloody is pagan and not Christianity. The problem is the worship of Eucharist as an unbloody sacrifice is dogmatic at Ephesus. "For even after the consecration the mystic symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance, figure, and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before. But they are regarded as what they have become, and believed so to be, and are worshipped as being what they are believed to be. Compare then the image with the archetype, and you will see the likeness, for the type must be like the reality."
You wrote: "Transubstantiation is not about physical transformation. In fact it's impossible..." I agree that it's impossible, however the Roman Catholic Church teaches very clearly that transubstantiation *necessarily includes* physical transformation. Roman Catholic clergy under Queen Mary's reign burned alive at least 288 English reformers in 4 years, from 1555 to 1558, and one of the main reasons why they were condemned as heretics was because they would not recant their belief that Christ is present in the Eucharist in a spiritual manner only, and not corporally present. (Source: "Five English Reformers," by J.C. Ryle) The RCC was deadly serious about it!
@@rexlion4510 Gavin Ortlund gives his personal recommendation on the works of Brett Salkeld. As a former Dutch Calvinist who converted to Byzantine Catholic I entirely second Gavin Ortlund endorsement. Brett entirely and meticulously refuted the false history that the Catholic Church profess carnal and physical transformation. Not only impossible but also prohibited by God's immutable law since the beginning of creation against cannibalism. Brett clarified in his interview with Gavin that had the transformation were carnal and physical then after consuming one can't be discarded in toilet. Brett pointed out historically when this was debated and condemned. The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church profess the Eucharistic adoration of the unbloody sacrifice which as Martin Luther stated witnessed unanimously by the entire Church without disagreement. Spiritual presence is Nestorian. Because Calvin denied communication of attributes between the two natures to one another. You can read Martin Luther condemnation of John Calvin extracalvinisticum belief. Calvin argued the humanity of Christ remain united to the Logos but physically localized in heaven. Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, and Anglicans opposed this novelty. Because at Ephesus St Cyril's second letter accepted as dogmatic. In it Cyril wrote that the flesh present in the chalice and transcend physical limitations because that flesh is God's flesh and entirely deified. Theosis communicate divine attributes into the deified flesh. This is what St Peter wrote regarding theosis namely participation with the uncreated divinity. Unless the humanity of Christ is in the chalice then what you have in the chalice would be a Nestorian Christ. This is why Martin Luther explicitly and categorically condemned John Calvin extracalvinisticum because the humanity has transcended created limitations and receives attributes fitting for divinity due to communicatio idiommata between the two natures. Calvin and Nestorius accepted communication of attributes not between the two natures but to the person. This is why John Owen explicitly taught that during earthly ministry Christ entirely emptied Himself kenotically and His miracles entirely from Holy Spirit aiding and empowering the humanity. This view is Nestorian. That's why Martin Luther accused John Calvin to be a Nestorian. In regards to torture and death penalty, the Catholic Church has formally and categorically condemn it similar to how John Calvin involved in permitting the burning of Michael Servetus despite of having power to prevent it or with the infamous burning of St Joan of Arc.
@@AdithiaKusno I do not see how anyone (Salkeld or otherwise) can contradict the clear statement by the Council of Trent on the subject. One of the Canons of Trent (which has never been retracted) states, "If any one denieth, that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained really, truly, *and substantially,* the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, *and consequently the whole Christ;* ...let him be anathema." This Canon is saying that the consecrated elements become "the whole" Jesus Christ. The very body and blood are "substantially" (i.e., in substance) present. The substance of a body is its physicality. The substance of blood is physical in nature along with all of its inherent properties. In other words, the physical substance of His body and blood must be believed by a person to be present in the host and cup, or that person is "anathema" to the RCC, the church which claimed itself to be the sole mediator of salvation when it taught for centuries that "outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation." I was baptized, catechized, and confirmed in the Roman Catholic Church. God called me out of the RCC when I was 18, but due to that church's brainwashing (they taught me that I'd be damned to hell if I left and died outside of the RC faith) I resisted the Holy Spirit for 8 more years. Now I am in my 60s. I possess photocopied pages from one of the books they used to teach us the Catechism. It says, "After the substance of the bread and wine had been changed, only the _appearances_ of bread and wine remained...the _appearances_ of bread and wine _without_ their _substance_ ." (italics copied from the original text). The book I am quoting from had the official "imprimatur" and "Nihil Obstat" of the RCC and was fully approved as being correct in doctrine. If Salkeld says differently than the Catechism book I was taught from and differently than Trent, I'd say he is a modern revisionist of actual history.
@@AdithiaKusno I will say that your reasoning tends to show why a "spiritual presence" concept is not proper. Although I am now an Anglican Christian (emphasis on "Christian", for it is Christ crucified and risen who defines my identity) I am more persuaded than ever than a memorialist/symbolic view is best, so long as due reverence is included.
@@rexlion4510 Trent dogmatized that the Eucharist is entirely Christ substantially but nowhere Trent interpret this to imply physical transformation. And this is true to this day. You can't find any Church fathers disagree not even St Theodoret that Gavin Ortlund quoted. Because the word physis used by St Theodoret refers to physicality of bread and wine which remain after transelementation. This is what St Aquinas refer to as accidental nature. St Damascene apply this accidental nature to the humanity of Christ after incarnation because the human subsistence is anhypostasis it has no existence by itself other than exist assumed by the Logos. Accident doesn't mean it's illusory or has no physical reality. Brett Salkeld is defending how Tridentine fathers understood itself. I highly recommend you to read his book or his interview with Gavin Ortlund. One easy example to affirm that Trent deny physical transformation is that after communion if it's physical then no one could discarded it in toilet. It was debated before Trent whether after consumed it stays as Holy Eucharist or cease and can be discarded in toilet. This is why Tridentine fathers avoided the use of physical transformation. Transubstantiation is metaphysical transformation not physical. You can verify in the lab the physical properties stay as St Theodoret stated. It's the metaphysical transformation that transformed the bread and the wine into Christ. You may argue that this is historical revisionism but this is not. You can ask any Assyrian Church of the East, Oriental Orthodox, and Eastern Orthodox if after consumption it stays as Eucharist in the digestive system? They will confirm to you it is not. Therefore bread and wine can be discarded in toilet because the transformation is never physical. This is what Trent dogmatized and always everywhere professed by the Church everywhere and at all time since the beginning. Ask any Assyrians, or Coptics, or Greeks. No one will say otherwise.
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with Gavin on this one. Jesus and the Apostle Paul said the Lord's supper is an act of remembrance. Nothing more can be added to this clear statement; it's an act of remembrance, and that's where it needs to be understood. Adding to this, layers of stipulations and technical necessities are more akin to the Romanist idolatry of the Eucharist. Yes, we are to partake in the Lord's supper with honor and faith, but it is just a remembrance of what Jesus did for us upon the cross. The Lord's supper can be done by two or even one Christian, with or without a "Preist or Pastor." The idea expressed is to remember and honor the Lord Jesus Christ and what he did for us in the scourging and death on the cross. It's not meant to build layers of religious complexity of rituals and rules to something beautiful and simple. (Luke 22:19, NASB) "And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in [remembrance] of Me." (1 Corinthians 11:24-26, NASB) "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in [remembrance] of Me." In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in [remembrance] of Me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes." Blessings †
Greatly enjoyed this video. The last point is interesting because I've refused communion at certain churches based off the memorial meal idea. Someone said to me (and this stuck), "if you don't think Christ is at communion, He'll honor that belief and won't be there."
Peace and grace to you! The Oriental Orthodox Believe it’s the real body and blood of Christ that we receive in a mystery ineffable. Our Lord Jesus Christ said it is his body and blood. We take it at face value. We don’t have to understand how.
While the video even with its wandering thought process is focused on what some Baptist, some places, sometimes believe... Since Dr. O did bring up what he wants us to believe is the one and only Catholic Dogma regarding the Eucharist (at least in his mind) that of Transubstantiation, there is much more. Starting with the basics of the Sacraments, (all seven according to the Catholic and Orthodox teaching) The Church teaches that the Sacraments are the work and action of Christ Jesus, not of the priest, a bishop or even the Pope. While some Sacraments, (the Eucharist and Penance) do require a priest to be confected validly, it is according to Catholic teaching, Christ's priesthood, which He shares with those ordained to Holy Orders, not the personal possession of any individual that He uses in order to work with our souls. Others like Baptism, and Marriage do not require a priest in extraordinary circumstances. Just as He breathed on the Apostles and told them "Who's sins you forgive..." What they do in these sacraments is done because Christ promised and gave authority for it. While Transubstantiation is a definition in the Latin Church, used to describe what happens when Christ acts at the Eucharistic Sacrifice, Eastern Catholics who use a different language, and hold the same beliefs describe the Corporal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist using their own culture and language, which while different than the Latin definition, is not contrary to it. Transubstantiation is also a reaction to the abuses both of lax Catholics and denial of the Apostolic Father's teachings by various Protestant groups who battled, sometimes physically, often times with condemnations and curses on the other's souls for not holding to what one or the other held. Dr. O as usual misses or omits the Catholic stance regarding God's Grace as taught by the Catholic Church. We will start with Baptism. The Catholic Church has always taught that even the Baptism done by a heretic if it is done with water, the Trinitarian formula and the simple intention of doing what Christians hold as a sacred act is valid. Up until the early 20th Century various Protestant sects, and many Orthodox Churches re-baptized anyone entering into their communion absolutely. As it is important in Catholic teaching that one be baptized, any convert who was baptized according to the above was accepted without re-baptism. If there was a doubt, such as someone who came from a communion which used Rose Water, or flower petals etc (Yup some Armenians and Protestants did so.) or folks who followed the divergences of people like the Episcopal Bishop Pike who presumed to Baptize in the name of the Creator, Redemer and Spirit of Truth, were at the very least baptized conditionally. With the words, "If you are not baptized, I baptize you...." So, the crying about those mean Catholics who say I never received the Eucharist are a bit of a sad little show. As to the Eucharist. Yes the Catholic Church would say, Dr. O has never received the Eucharist, in that he has never received bread and or wine consecrated by a priest (Catholic Orthodox, or a small group of other sects which the CC holds have valid priests) But he hides of omits behind his protests, the Catholic Church holds that while we as Catholics are bound to revealed truth, and to practice the Faith as the Church has held since it's foundation... God is not bound to this and can and does out of His love for mankind give His grace even without valid Sacraments. So in reality it is the Catholic Church which says, "Perhaps Dr. O has never received a validly consecrated Eucharist, but God is not limited by that and can give His graces even to those who well intentioned do not follow the Apostolic Faith." Dr. O would say. Nope Catholics don't dunk, so they don't Baptize, Catholics hold a wrong idea of the Eucharist and worship Christ in what He told us was His Body and Blood, so they are not followers of the teachings I hold, and I reject their accretions. Which one looks at the other with Christian charity? As an aside, I do love accretions. My library started out with a few dozen books and now is composed of over 60,000 volumes, (mostly Catholic, but also various Protestant sects, Mormon JW and Orthodox as well as part of my grandfather's Rabbinic Library) Accretions are not always the bugaboo Dr. O tries to scare us with. Dr. O's ideas about the Baptist teachings on the Eucharist, which he himself admits in the video would be looked at as boarding on Catholic ideas, and accretions to other Baptists. I know it is hard to cover everything in a video, but sometimes it seems Dr. O's Omissions of Catholic teaching is hopefully simply ignorance of the full depth of Catholic thought, and he will not stop reading on the Catholic position because his apparent shallow understanding is what he thinks to be the entire teaching.
Regardless of the person's faith or worthiness the bread and wine that has been mystically instituted into the true Body and Blood of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ is indeed His objective true physical presence that must be glorified, worshiped with fear and trembling. As the beloved St. Paul the Evangelist writes warning the church in Corinth; 27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. 30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. (1 Cor. 11:27-30)
As a Presbyterian member of a Baptistic Reformed Church, I share your view. The Eucharist is a real means of grace. The Eucharist is the celebration of our Union with Christ, and he communes with us when we partake. The elements are symbolic but points to the real spiritual presence indwelling the believer. You express this far more eloquently than I do. The Lutheran view I find a bit off-putting in its use of Aristotelian categories of substance and accidents. So does Aquinas, a thoroughgoing Aristotelian, though his view uses the same terminology in supporting transubstantiation. Sadly, traditional non-1689 Baptists seem to have adopted a Zwinglian view of the Eucharist as part of a trifecta that also includes semi-Pelagian soteriology (even Arminian Roger Olsen wrote about his concern with this in 2012) and of course Dispensationalism. But those other two members of the non-Reformed Baptist trifecta are off-topic for the current discussion.
@TruthUnites @Dr Ortlund whats your opinion on @Dr. Ricardo Castañón Gómez, one of the principal investigators for many Eucharist miracles. Or just Eucharist miracles themselves? Thanks and GOD Bless your family and you. Robert from Puerto Rico 🇵🇷
Interesting take on this. Some good points. It’s still really hard for me to listen to one person interpreting what he thinks some church fathers may have meant when they said something. Honest question, and I’m not being rhetorical, why should this view be accepted? Like, by what authority can this view be trusted? Again, I’m asking honestly, because Dr. Gavin Ortland says this is what some church fathers and reformers meant by real presence, I should accept that view? Again, why should I be compelled to believe that? Thanks for the videos.
It wasn't made clear to me, but did the memorialist understanding of the Eucharist happen when most Baptists abandoned Calvinism in the 19th century? It also must have something to do with Baptists abandoning 'creeds' like their earlier doctrinal confessions as a guide.
Perhaps a key problematic/confusing issue here is that the RCC understanding has a mechanism the Protestant 'system' doesn't. For the RCC the 'application of grace' make sense in their system of accessing and applying merit. Whereas one might ask of the Protestant view, what difference does this mystical working of Christ through the eucharist make? What does it 'do'? The Protestant view seems to lack the mechanism that the RCC see as essential. As such, they might consider the assertion of spiritual presence not being 'real' presence because it's all just semantics.
In John 6:63 Jesus said that the presence in the flesh or bread is the Holy Spirit. So the Wine or blood must be the Light of the Father. We receive both when we receive Jesus in us. In 68 Peter says the Eucharist is for Eternal life. Or receiving Jesus ( Holy Spirit and Light). The Rememberance is what the saved did. 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The lwords I have spoken to you-they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.” 66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. 67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve. 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”
I find this disturbing. The emphasis should be on scripture, not the opinions of its interpreters. Reformed Christians share Roman Catholic and Orthodox tendencies to overemphasize opinions of intermediaries, people who came after the scriptures. A critical analysis of their interpretations, comparing them to scriptures, is instructive. Comparing doctrines to interstitial opinions is an argument from borrowed authority, the wrong authority; whereas the only acceptable authority is the scriptures. Truth is not democratic. The Reformation was not the Restoration. It was a journey away from Catholic heresies, not to, but towards, scriptural beliefs. Luther retained a great deal of Roman Catholic baggage. Calvin, less so. Reformed theologians who set “historic Baptist” beliefs, or the beliefs of any other period, as a fixed standard, commit a grave error. Someone has labeled it “chronological snobbery” when Progressives and (other) atheists reject the scriptures due to their age. The label can also be applied to those who give undue authority to “historical” positions. More to the subject itself, my opinion: The Holy Spirit is already present in believers; no additional presence is necessary. Any conference of grace associates with faith, relationship, and the direction of one’s mind into communion, not mystical works. An act that is strictly symbolic is sufficient for such communion. Pragmatically, I see no evidence that any grace is conferred through communion, other than as a result of directing one’s mind into communing with God and increased reliance on what Christ does for us. Also pragmatically, it is misleading and dangerous to use the term, “Eucharist,” since it implies grace through works and transubstantiation. Paul’s word, “tradition,” is far better, or the more specific word, “Communion.”
hello! the word "eucharist" is a transliteration of the Greek word eucharistia, used more than a dozen times in the New Testament. I agree the focus should be on Scripture, but that was not the purpose of this particular video. I have given a (brief) biblical case elsewhere, in case that is of interest.
The issue is that well meaning people disagree on interpretations of the same scripture. That’s why we go back to church fathers and their opinions since they are closer to the Apostles. Read Justin Martyr’s First Apology from 155AD, one generation from the Apostles- he speaks of the real presence and describes the Catholic liturgy for worship.
“People love to dismiss baptists and sometimes we deserve it…” hahah love this topic and I’d love to see more of our Baptist brothers and sisters embracing a historical real presence view!
Well, most Baptists who embrace historical Christianity and Protestantism, then become Presbyterians. That's why there aren't that many reformed Baptists.
Eh. My grandparents and my father are Baptists. My grandmother hated Catholics thought they were devil worshippers lol, kinda funny to think about. We Went to their Baptist churches as a kid once in a while. To be honest when they did what they call communion they used grape juice and there was a lack of reverence. The used it to remind themselves of Jesus the symbology of it while totally missing (which I didn’t know then) the literal part of Jesus instituted at the Last Supper. I remember seeing it was like this is a bit weird. I didn’t grow up religious my grandparents were, my brothers and I were not.
So is this now changing in the Baptist Church or is it just you hold a more traditional view of the Eucharist now personally?
@@catholicguy1073 Among Baptists, Gavin's view is rare. I would say that only 1% of Baptists hold this view. Most Baptists hold the "memorial view" which became rather a light view of the sacrament/ordinance.
It's the result of American Christianity. The freedom of religion as a law is a double-edged sword. While it can promote more tolerance, it can also breed heresies. The largest heretical cults all originated in the US.
@@catholicguy1073 I think the point Gavin is trying to make in his video is that the memorialist view of Holy Communion (which you and I both have experienced sadly) is not necessarily the traditional Baptist view though it has become more common today.
I hope that Baptists return to embracing the Reformed Spiritual Presence view. For one, as you alluded to, memorialism is just a sad & less powerful experience imo. And secondly, I do not think it is able to be defended historically.
@@my.apologies Maybe you should check out Gavin's church service and see how he does it..
In fact, being a Baptist pastor, I need to say that many Baptists believe that grape juice transubstantiates into wine.
That’s so funny!
In the serious side: what do think it will take for American Baptistic churches to reclaim wine instead of grape juice? Prohibition was a long time ago!
Now that’s funny.
😂😂
Baptist Pastors have not received the Sacrament of Holy Orders from a Bishop of Apostolic Succession - Catholic and Orthodox Pastors only. Therefore Baptist Pastors do not have the faculty to consecrate the bread and wine to become the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
bwahaha...
As someone who goes to a Baptist church and works at a Baptist university, I’ve never met anyone “on the ground” who holds anything other than the memorialist view. When faced with the idea that something more like what you’re talking about is, “Historically Baptist,” their answer is more or less that it doesn’t matter; it’s rejected as a, “Tradition of men,” and most contemporary Baptists have no problem with rejecting almost anything the early reformers taught if they feel it’s too Catholic sounding. All this is to say that the caricature isn’t unfair at all in my experience.
And so my response to someone’s comment that “it’s too Catholic” is “and that’s bad?”. Good for you that you are thinking thru this!
I might be an exception but I’m a baptist pastor with this real/spiritual presence view of the Lord’s Supper. There’s at least a handful of us!
@@Apriluser I’ve been heavily researching Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and in think that’s just the right answer.
@@legacy242-47 my problem is that I also hold this position, and I’m not sure I think there’s a great way out of James with the Protestant view on justification. It doesn’t leave me with many options
Surely you don't live in Europe, if that was what you saw around you.
A purely memorialist view is the exception among all Protestants here; at least, all affirm there is a power and sonething trancendental in this Act.
Sometimes I think we Evangelicals in general deny the Presence of Christ at the Table so strongly that one might wonder if we think it's the only place in Creation the Godhead is absent.
As a baptist, it’s very heartwarming to hear another baptist discuss Real Presence. Sometimes it can feel like I am an island in a sea when it comes to the sacraments
I wholeheartedly agree 👍
He is discussing a false definition of Real Presence and should have listened to the people who have already told him so. Transubstantiation, Real Presence, is what the early Church fathers taught and most importantly what Jesus Christ taught. At Catholic and Orthodox Holy Mass the bread and wine become the flesh, blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ (transubstantiation). Baptist's get bread and wine or juice.
God bless you
@@Chris-wf6km Thanks Chris for saving me the time of having to explain this. He essentially said he believed in the real presence and then says it is NOT the real presence in the Eucharist, but in the "room", haha. Baptist brothers, please read the Church fathers for yourself. It's the same with the media; you have to see it for yourself to understand what type of spin others are putting on it. Be cunning as serpants.
Obviously some extraordinary is happening when the bread and wine are taken or there wouldn’t be a warning about taking it in an unworthy manner. It’s not literally the physical flesh. ie veins, cells etc. these are not visible. Jesus is everywhere that you can go in the universe but He says where 2 or 3 are gathered in my name I am there with you. He is somehow more with 2 or more than as usual.
@@cryptopotomus3948 The Eucharist Host is living physical flesh:-
50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53 So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.”
God bless you
Amazing as always, Dr. Ortlund! As someone within a non-denominational context, these videos are so informative and helpful for me thinking through my faith.
Good for you that you are exploring. Blessings on your inquiries!
@@Apriluser Thanks so much! Blessings to you as well!
Thank you, pastor. I'm looking forward to reading those books on historic baptist sacramentalism. As a memorialist Baptist who is currently on the fence about Christ's Real Presence in the Supper, at this point in my discerning I agree with you that a true Christian does not necessarily need to believe in Real Presence for Real Presence to occur in their partaking of the Lord's Supper, if it's true. My support for this is that Jesus knows precisely who His sheep are, and He is a very Good Shepherd to feed, nourish, and provide for them wherever they may be.
Check out Bishop Barron's homily on "The Real Presence". He has a couple of videos on this specific topic alone.
I absolutely recommend diving into the reasons and arguments for real presence. It opens up a beautiful new avenue through which Christ loves us and draws us closer to himself
I feel like Gavin's work will in time move us all back towards what it is to be Christian, a unity of Faith, in Christ, with humble submission to His word and His spirit.
If our one authority for Christian teaching is scripture, then by default we have unity. Don't mistake fallible creatures getting things wrong here and there as being some kind of opposite of unity. I have unity with my wife, and we also disagree and various things.
The groups that bring DISunity are precisely those groups that elevate their convictions to equality with the gospel and scripture itself. To the point of them anathemetizing everyone else out or excomunicating them out.
What you are alluding to is not called unity, it's called conformity. Everybody must be made to bow to one single interpretation or understanding of every possible last little point where there may be a different among us. But this is not unity, this is a fairy tale.
Those that know this is a fairy tale will offer yet another solution, they offer up a wishful thinking idea that "wouldn't it be nice if we just had ONE authority to declare every truth and they couldn't be wrong about anything?" But unfortunately that has a lot of issues, none the least is that all humans are fallible and make errors. And secondly, you end up with many many groups all claiming this position of absolute power on earth to declare every truth.
In any case, in the real world, the fallen world such as it is, we have our one authority the holy scriptures, and our job is to seek unity DESPITE various tradition differences. Unity does not mean conformity.
Have you read Brant Pitre’s the Jewish roots of the Eucharist? I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on the points he makes. It seems that the only way for us to try to grasp the mystery of the sacrament of the Eucharist is to look at John 6 and the words of Christ at the last supper through a 1st century Jewish lens.
If you’ve not read it please do and maybe you can make a video on it.
It’s a great book. ☺️
The Jews were about to celebrate the Passover at Jerusalem, in commemoration of the night of Israel's deliverance, when the destroying angel smote the homes of Egypt. In the paschal lamb God desired them to behold the Lamb of God, and *through the symbol receive Him* who gave Himself for the life of the world. But the Jews had come to make the symbol all-important, while its significance was unnoticed. They discerned not the Lord's body. The same truth that was symbolized in the paschal service was taught in the words of Christ. But it was still undiscerned.
Now the rabbis exclaimed angrily, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?” They affected to understand His words *in the same literal sense* as did Nicodemus when he asked, “How can a man be born when he is old?” (John 3:4). To some extent they comprehended the meaning of Jesus, but they were not willing to acknowledge it. By *misconstruing* His words, they hoped to prejudice the people against Him.
Christ *did not soften down* His symbolical representation. He reiterated the truth in yet stronger language: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, dwelleth in Me, and I in him.”
To eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ is to receive Him as a personal Saviour, believing that He forgives our sins, and that we are complete in Him. It is by beholding His love, by dwelling upon it, by drinking it in, that we are to become partakers of His nature. What food is to the body, Christ must be to the soul. Food cannot benefit us unless we eat it, unless it becomes a part of our being. So Christ is of no value to us if we do not know Him as a personal Saviour. A theoretical knowledge will do us no good. We must feed upon Him, receive Him into the heart, so that His life becomes our life. His love, His grace, must be assimilated.
@@YajunYuanSDARather, the Jews had to EAT the passover lamb, or their firstborn would have died. And in John 6, the bread of life discourse, all those who heard him took him literally. None took him as speaking symbolically only. Christ is the Lamb of God. We have to eat the lamb.
- it was a hard saying
- who could take it?
- the crowds left him
- the Jews then wanted to kill him (Para 1, Ch 7)
As an Anglican (ex-Baptist), this is rather fascinating. I'd argue most Baptists do not view it the way you do, but its really refreshing to hear a classical Baptist understanding. I waffle between Cranmer's view and a more Anglo-Catholic understanding, but I'd agree that the mode in which Christ is present is less important than what we receive from Christ in the Eucharist.
Yay! Fellow Anglican who used to be baptist!
Dude, most Baptist have a very low view of church regardless.
I’m recently attending an Anglican Church after discovering in scripture that the lords supper was far more important then what I was initially led to believe in my Pentecostal church growing up. The verse that made me question the view I was raised with was
1 Corinthians 11:27. I was raised with the view that it’s only done in memorial.
Another Anglican here who grew up Pentecostal along with my husband, and now we are Anglican and he is our priest. Love taking the Eucharist!
@@joechillstudios its remembrance but also a very serious action of the regenerate.
Didache 9.1 - (AD 100) Now, concerning the Eucharist, practice it as follows. " First, concerning the cup: We give thanks to you, our Father, for the holy vine of David your son, which you made known to us through Jesus your son, glory to you forever a Next, concerning the broken bread: We give thanks to you, our Father, for the life and knowledge which you made known to us through Jesus your son, glory to you forever b4 Just as this broken bread was being scattered over the mountains and being brought together it became one; likewise bring together your church from the ends of the earth into your kingdom, so that yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever cs But none shall eat or shall drink from your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; for also concerning this the Lord has said,
"Do give not what is holy to the dogs."
The Didache (AD 100): “On the Lord’s day assemble and break bread and give thanks, having first confessed your sins, that your sacrifice may be pure. If any have a dispute with his fellow, let him not come to the assembly till they be reconciled, that your sacrifice be not polluted. For this is the sacrifice spoken of by the Lord; ‘In every place and at every time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great king, said the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the Gentiles; (Mal. i. 11, 14).”
This doesn’t refer to Jesus’ sacrifice, but to “your sacrifice.” The same Greek word for “sacrifice” (thusia) is used of Jesus’ sacrifice (Heb. 5:1), but it is also used of doing good deeds, praise, and financial giving (Heb. 13:15-16; Phil. 4:18). The same book also refers to the supper as the “cup” and the “bread,” and a means of remembering Jesus’ sacrifice in thanksgiving (Didache, 9).
Loves the idea about the mouse accidentally partaking. Could he be called a “church mouse”? Sorry couldn’t resist. ☺️
I work in a Baptist church and have never heard anyone discuss the efficacy of baptism and the real presence of the Eucharist in this way. I’ve been wrestling with this for a while, as the Scriptures are clear that both are far greater than symbols. Thank you for your excellent explanation of the historic Baptist view. The Lord has used you to give me some credence in the Baptist perspective.
Baptist Pastors have not received the Sacrament of Holy Orders from a Bishop of Apostolic Succession - Catholic and Orthodox Pastors only. Therefore Baptist Pastors do not have the faculty to consecrate the bread and wine to become the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
Here is my writeup on Baptism. It may be of help as you wrestle.
*The Old Testament Prefigures a greater New Testament reality: The Waters of Baptism are Salvific.*
- Noah and his family were saved by the water and cleansed humanity of sin, the Ark representing the Church.
- The Israelites were saved by water from Pharaoh’s army crossing the sea
- The Israelites were again saved by water when Moses struck the Rock
*God foretells his Spirit would someday reside not in Jerusalem’s temple built by man but within mankind himself:*
_25 I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances (Ez 36)._
*St John the Baptist says that Jesus would come baptizing with the Holy Spirit:*
_“I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire_ (Mat 3:11).
_I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit’_ (Jn 1:33).
*St Paul speaks to the New Testament fulfillment, through Baptism, our body being the temple of God’s Spirit.*
_Do you not know that your body is the temple of the holy spirit within you, which you have from God (1 Cor 6:19)?_
*We receive the Holy Spirit through baptism, the external washing by water signifying (a sign, a symbol, but not a sign or symbol only) of an interior spiritual change within us.*
*Born Anew (Again) - through baptism, we are “born again” scripturally*
_3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicode′mus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit [baptism], he cannot enter the kingdom of God (Jn 3: 3,5)._
*Regenerated and Justified - All Sacraments are means of receiving his Grace (we are saved by Grace)*
_when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, 6 which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life (Titus 3: 4-7)._
*Sanctified - the exterior sign of water signifies the interior spiritual change through baptism.*
_11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God (1 Cor 6: 11)._
*Baptism Restores Sanctifying Grace and Cleanses Us of ALL Personal Sins*
_And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name (Acts 22: 16).”_
*Baptism Saves Us - by having the Spirit of God in us; God can’t be any more explicit*
- _“Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit [baptism], he cannot enter the kingdom of God (Jn 3: 5).”_
- _Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 3: 21)._
- _He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned_ (Mk 16: 16; believing / having faith means to follow all that Christ commanded. He commanded that Christians be baptized as a means of receiving his grace)
*Note, Christian men taught this whole time exactly what scripture teaches. Examples below.*
“Moreover, the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men’s being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration,-as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God.” Theopilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, 2: 16 (A.D. 181).
*Worth repeating: How is does one receive repentance and remission of sins .... through the water and spirit (the laver or regeneration). BAPTISM.*
“[W]hen they come to us and to the Church which is one, ought to be baptized, for the reason that it is a small matter to ‘lay hands on them that they may receive the Holy Ghost,’ unless they receive also the baptism of the Church. For then finally can they be fully sanctified, and be the sons of God, if they be born of each sacrament; since it is written, ‘Except a man be born again of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’…[O]nly baptism of the holy Church, by divine regeneration, for the kingdom of God, may be born of both sacraments, because it is written, ‘Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'” St. Cyprian, To Stephen, 71: 72 (A.D. 253).
“We are circumcised not with a fleshly circumcision but with the circumcision of Christ, that is, we are born again into a new man; for, being buried with Him in His baptism, we must die to the old man, because the regeneration of baptism has the force of resurrection.” St. Hilary of Poitiers, Trinity, 9: 9 (A.D. 359).
“This then is what it is to be born again of water and of the Spirit, the being made dead being effected in the water, while our life is wrought in us through the Spirit. In three immersions, then, and with three invocations, the great mystery of baptism is performed, to the end that the type of death may be fully figured, and that by the tradition of the divine knowledge the baptized may have their souls enlightened. It follows that if there is any grace in the water, it is not of the nature of the water, but of the presence of the Spirit.” St. Basil, On the Spirit, 15: 35 (A.D. 375).
Thank you for your hard work, Dr. Ortlund.
I long for the day my church recognizes real presence and we can partake in proper respects to that reality. It grieves my heart to see this neglected.
It won't work if you don't have ministerial priests to transform bread and wine into the Eucharist.
@@Lerian_V says who?
@@not_milk The Bible, Tradition, and the Church. Asking why a normal person can't consecrate the Eucharist is like asking why a normal person can't pass spending for an expansion to the town park. Genesis 2:18 tells us that we are not meant to be alone, meaning that we are meant to form society. Within society there must be specialization; bakers will bake, teachers will teach. It is the job of a mayor to pass spending, it is the job of the priest to consecrate the Eucharist.
The central job of a priest is to offer sacrifices to God on behalf of the faithful. In the Old Covenant, this took the form of animal sacrifice, and for the New Covenant this takes the form of the Son to His Father in mediation as our eternal High Priest. So really, the question is for you to answer since the original or default mode of sacrifice was done by specialists: Who says that the rule changed and now just anyone can perform the job of the priest?
This is all not to mention that if just anyone were able to consecrate the host there would be an uncountable amount of offenses committed against the flesh and blood of the Lord. 1 Corinthians 11:20-30 records an account of some faithful at the church in Corinth who were abusing the consecrated host and then promptly becoming sick and dying. Seeing as this is how much the Father values His Son in the Eucharist, how could he possibly allow every Christian, no matter how sinful, improperly educated, heretical, or even mentally unbalanced to consecrate the host?
@@not_milk Even an angel cannot consecrate a communion host..
@@not_milk --- Jesus for one.
Dr. Ortlund, I can’t thank you enough for this video! As an evangelical who is starting to open my eyes to church history, and now a believer in real presence in the Eucharist for the past year, I have been looking for the answers you have provided!
I do have a question on your last thought in the video. I would love to have a Bible study on this subject alone with a Bible study group I meet up with at my evangelical church. But I will say, I don’t know how well it will go over with the head leadership to do such a thing. What would be the best way to approach this carefully and respectfully in light of my Church’s emphasis on their memoralist view every Sunday? Thanks in advance.
thanks a lot! One possibility might be simply sending them a video like this one, and asking if they are open to further discussion. I think it is important to be respectful of the leadership so I am so glad you are thinking about that. God bless you!
I’m a Baptist who has always held to the Memorialist view but I’m open to learning. Where would you begin with a biblical case for the spiritual presence view. Memorialism leans heavily on the NT’s explicit purpose statements for Communion. “This do in remembrance…” “Show the Lord’s death…” Are there any texts that positively support spiritual presence?
When Jews did the Passover meal they were "reliving" their exile from Egypt. When Jesus does the "Do this in remembrance of me" he is exclaiming what they did with their Passover meal. Then obviously right after he says, "This is my body."
John 6 before the last supper he is telling the crowd that his flesh becomes real food, and they denied him 5 times and he corrected them 5 times and they still left.
Gavin
Would you be open to doing a series of videos that outline the historic Baptist views on the sacraments , church governance, and other important topics. I would love to see how much that historical Baptist tradition was still in the same umbrella theologically as the historic church and its magesterial Protestants
Brilliant video, Dr Ortlund. As a Lutheran, you are correct that I feel a little mis-characterised by your video. No hard feelings though. I think your video is the best comparative discussion on this topic I have ever seen. It did make me think, however, are we at the point we are trying to split the atom with this stuff?? I’m sure Christ himself doesn’t really mind, and probably isn’t taking sides over this topic.
You're sure?
If there is no faith in a real presence that involves the power of Holy Spirit transforming the substance beneath the outward appearance (accidence) of the bread, then all you are receiving is bread while believing subjectivity in Jesus words “this is my body.”
I believe in the “Real Presence”, A Mysterious transformation of matter indeed! I believe in the power of Christ transformative Word! All throughout the gospel Jesus Christ spoke and miracles happen. Why can’t non Catholic Christians take Jesus at his word? Many Catholics, too. Sadly. The Eucharist IS Jesus’ Body and Blood, not in a “spiritual sense alone” but in a Sacrament.
Es el sino de los protestantes, mucho sola escritura, pero al final no hacen caso de ella.
How can Catholics say that Christ does not die again on the altar when the Council of Trent states that he is immolated in the Mass?
Simple. "Immolate" does not mean "kill." It is a synonym for "sacrifice," a concept which does not require the sacrificial gift to be killed (Num. 8:11-21, Rom. 12:1).
According to its root-words, "to immolate" means to sprinkle with sacrificial grits or meal. In ancient times the sacrificial gift was sprinkled with this meal as part of the ritual. Eventually the word "immolate," which originally referred to only part of the ceremony, was extended to cover the whole act of sacrifice, and so it became detached from its original meaning of "to sprinkle with meal" and became a synonym for sacrifice.
Because sacrifices often involve killing, the term immolate can have this association, but that is not the way in which the Church is using it. This is obvious from the language Trent uses, that in the Mass "Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner" (session 22, ch. 2)--an unbloody manner being one that does not involve killing.
After reading the early Christians, than seeing my church throw the leftovers in the trash after service I promptly located a different church that had a more respectful Eucharistic celebration.
This highlights their symbolic only view. The bread never became his resurrected body. One won't find Christians doing such in the first 1500 years of Christianity. Here are examples of what the earliest Christians said, reflecting how scripture should be understood :
St Ignatius of Antioch - a disciple of St John - “For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (A.D. 110-165).
- St Ignatius is a great example of he (St Ignatius) who hears you (St John), hears me (Jesus)
St. Cyril of Jerusalem - “Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man’s heart, to make his face to shine with oil, ‘strengthen thou thine heart,’ by partaking thereof as spiritual, and “make the face of thy soul to shine.”” Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350).
St. Athanasius - “You will see the Levites bringing the loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made, it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wonderous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ ….When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body.” Sermon to the Newly Baptized, PG 26, 1325 (ante A.D. 373).
St. Ambrose - “Then He added: ‘For My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink [indeed].’ Thou hearest Him speak of His Flesh and of His Blood, thou perceivest the sacred pledges, [conveying to us the merits and power] of the Lord’s death, and thou dishonourest His Godhead. Hear His own words: ‘A spirit hath not flesh and bones.’ Now we, as often as we receive the Sacramental Elements, which by the mysterious efficacy of holy prayer are transformed into the Flesh and the Blood, “do show the Lord’s Death.'” On the Christian Faith, 4, 10:125 (A.D. 380).
St. Gregory of Nyssa - “Rightly, then, do we believe that now also the bread which is consecrated by the Word of God is changed into the Body of God the Word. For that Body was once, by implication, bread, but has been consecrated by the inhabitation of the Word that tabernacled in the flesh. Therefore, from the same cause as that by which the bread that was transformed in that Body was changed to a Divine potency, a similar result takes place now. For as in that case, too, the grace of the Word used to make holy the Body, the substance of which came of the bread, and in a manner was itself bread, so also in this case the bread, as says the Apostle, ‘is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer’; not that it advances by the process of eating to the stage of passing into the body of the Word, but it is at once changed into the body by means of the Word, as the Word itself said, ‘This is My Body.’” The Great Catechism, 37 (post A.D. 383).
St. Augustine - “‘And was carried in His Own Hands:’ how ‘carried in His Own Hands’? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, ‘This is My Body.'” On the Psalms, 33:1, 10 (A.D. 392-418).
I find this a bit confusing. In what sense can you spiritually, substantially, and actually receive the flesh and blood of Jesus while also saying that we are not physically receiving it? How does one spiritually receive a physical thing? Those two things seem mutually exclusive. If I’m receiving something spiritually, then it’s not a physical thing I’m receiving. And if it’s not a physical thing, then it’s not actually Jesus’ flesh and blood, right? Just a point of contention that popped up while I was listening.
Yeah sounds like playing around with semantics in my honest opinion
@@johna6828it's actually this verse: John 6: 63 that we as Protestants recognize and what Gavin is talking about!
That doesn't clear things up. Besides words are just as intangible as spiritual things so that follows. What doesn't naturally follow is the connection between physical elements and the spiritual reality which can only be by faith ie the faith is what matters not the elementz
@@davidjanbaz7728 Jesus is referring to the source of knowledge, as he says earlier in the passage that none can come to Jesus unless the father draws him.
Certainly we can’t say Jesus actually meant that HIS flesh is of no avail, given that it is his flesh being pierced on the cross that leads to our salvation.
In any event, that seems to me to be a concession that the reformed view, or at least your view, is not actually a “real presence” view. If I’m wrong do correct me, I’d hate to misunderstand you.
@@sneakysnake2330 Jesus could have meant that his literal flesh is of no avail, but it is the spirit which gives life. For some very odd reason, you think eating his literal flesh, and drinking his literal blood is the all important point, but yet the spiritual reality, the way it rejuvenates our spirit is not the main point. That does not add to me. I know Catholics always insist that Jesus stated it literally, and ignore when he clarified, "the flesh profits nothing, but its' the spirit that gives life". Did Jesus mean it literally when he said if your eye offends you, cut it off. If your hand offends you cut it off. I'm sure your eye has offended you quite a number of times, so are you missing at least an eye? Pretty sure no, and for good reason.
Also, shout out to Andrew Gifford for living to the ripe old age of 184 😂
😂
real presence is truly life-giving
This was one of the reasons I left the Baptists for Orthodoxy. If I had thought it were a live option, it might have staved it off.
As an aside, in the Orthodox Church, every priest, deacon, teacher, et al I've heard has used the fire/metal analogy, has asserted that the elements really are changed, but that this change also does not involve a loss of their nature as bread and wine. And all of them insist that we are not to analyze or try to explain it. If I asked about the mouse scenario, I'd be told "That's none of your business!"
Hello Truth Unites. Many things have been written by many about what is understood as the Real Presence but I do not understand why is this concept necessary for our christian growth. Based on what Jesus said in the gospels, such as the gospel of Matthew 26 where it says : 28 for this is my blood of the[a] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.” The Passover meal was full of symbols which included bread, wine, herbs, lamb, etc. Jesus called the fruit of the vine what he called his blood so we can see that he was speaking in symbols. He was the Passover lamb which was going to be slaughter next day, and also the bread was a symbol of his body being marred and beaten for our salvation. In John 7:37-39, Jesus speaks of the Spirit which those who believed in him were to receive, also we know that by the Spirit is how we receive Living water, which is the spiritual life that comes from the Father. So why do we have to think that the living water comes anyother way except by the Spirit of the Father? There is nothing magycal that comes from bread and wine which are symbols only, no apostle taught what has been understood to be the Real presence. Our union with the Most High is by His Spirit which He promised to give to those who repent and believe the death and resurrection of Jesus, everything to be given by the Father comes from the Spirit, there is nothing that we receive outside ourselves. Unfortunately this idea has wrongly passed century after century as if it was true but it is not. The Passover meal represented the freedom from the Egyptians by the lamb's blood which was a type of what Jesus was going to do at Calvary. I think the symbol has become the real thing for many christians unfortunately.
My reading of Calvin left me confused. At one moment, he sounds very close to the Lutheran Confession. Another moment he says something like, "Faith goes beyond the sign and grasps the signified." This, as far as I can tell, does not acknowledge that the true and substantial body and blood of Christ Jesus are in the elements. Would Calvin, for example, say that all, be they worthy or unworthy communicants, receive the body and blood of Christ into their mouths? I understood that the Reformed would not say this, which raises the question in my mind, "In what sense is the presence Real or Objective if it isn't present, full stop, regardless of faith or unbelief"? Honest questions here. And Lutherans don't confess Consubstantiation, but Sacramental Union. That is what we say in our own Confessions.
I explained this position, the historic Baptist position to a Baptist and they accused me of supporting transubstantiation. I even explained that it is supported by the 1689 London Baptist Confession which I thought he affirmed but apparently he does not.
Great video, as always.
Just as a recommendation; I'm Presbyterian, but I think Lutherans prefer the label Sacramental Union over Cosubstantiation, even if that can be somewhat vague
You can use the label, but Lutherans have never held to consubstantiation.
Grateful for this excellent articulation of the historic Baptist view. Also grateful for the shout out to the Center for Baptist Renewal!
I don’t believe we’re missing out on Christ spiritual presence because we don’t hold to “real spiritual presence” of the Eucharist, I think it minimizes the dwelling of his Spirit already in us..
I would appreciate very much your response to the documented Eucharistic miracles. In particular, the research organized by Aimee Goodier, MD. After listening to her lectures, the evidence for transubstantiation appeared strong and I’ve not heard a Protestant response to these miracles. Thank you so much!
Yes would love to see @Dr Gavin Ortlund opinion on Dr. Ricardo Castañón Gómez, one of the principal investigators for many Eucharist miracles.
Yes, that would be very interesting to see Gavin respond to those researched and documented medical studies, which include the World Health Organization reports on the phenomenon of Eucharistic Miracles! I don’t think he wants to engage that research. Ask yourself this question, if God can create something out of nothing, through His Word (Jesus), when he said: “Let there be Light, and there was Light” ( Gen. 1:3), then why is it so difficult for Baptist to believe that God can transform something that already exists: bread, into something that is supernatural, and miraculous: Eucharist! The Baptist, and most Protestants, are Gnostic in their thinking: it’s the spirit alone that sets you free, the body (flesh) is dead. If that were true, the Incarnation would make no sense at all!
He won't do it. He is a wolf in sheep clothing
Transsubstantiation is not the same as real presence. Real presence does not specify the ontological change in Aristotelian terms.
you should be ashamed for saying this. @@justthink8952
I wish all calvinistic baptists were historical baptists like you Mr. Gavin Ortlund, would you consider yourself a particular baptist?
Thank you for the presentation! So thankful for Jesus
22 minutes in; well done! I agree with this view--and it's important, as you've emphasized, that there's a real mystical feasting. Calvin emphasizes the reception of the *substance* of the body and blood of Jesus through the bread and wine, which is received by faith.
"Mouses can't have faith*
*master Splinter and Stuart Little enter the chat*
But Jesus never said this is me present with bread and wine. He said this is my body and this is my blood. He said eat my flesh and drink my blood. Why must we doubt the words of Christ. Why can’t we see with eyes of faith? How does it make sense Protestants lost this belief and are now trying to regain it? Would Christ really allow his bride to teach falsehoods on something so important as this?
@johnbrion4565 Jesus also said he's a vine--that doesn't mean he's literally a vine (to beat a centuries old horse to death).
John 6:35-37 -- Jesus identifies eating and drinking with faith, and in 1 Corinthians Paul calls the consecrated bread "bread". We'd say that Jesus can call the bread his body by metonymy--because his body and blood are sacramentally united and given to the recipient
@@anglicanaesthetics Jesus also in John 6 has a chance to clarify and instead doubles down and says unless you “gnaw on” (trogein in the original greek) the flesh of the son of man there is no life in you.” And the disciples left. He risked his whole ministry on this teaching. Sure he spoke metaphorically but not on this.
Jesus was instituting a new Passover. He was the new Moses the Jews were waiting for. The last supper was the new Passover. For the Passover to be complete the lamb had to be eaten. Jesus is the new manna from heaven. The manna was a miraculous bread from heaven which was stored in the ark of the covenant. Jesus is the new manna which must be greater than the old. If the old manna was kept in the holiest place in Judaism how much greater is the new manna of the Logos made flesh? Even Catholics refer to the Eucharist as bread. They doesn’t mean we are saying it’s only bread. When we eat this bread and drink this cup we proclaim your death oh Lord until you come again. Paul said those who eat and drink unworthily must answer for the body and blood of the Lord.
@@anglicanaesthetics you should check out a book called Jesus and the Jewish roots of the Eucharist by Brant Pitre which explains all of this.
I've also gone down this same journey and come to the same conviction. 2 questions please if you see this:
1. What do you think of grape juice instead of wine? That's what my church practices.
2. I think an understanding of the real presence of Christ affects your eschatology. My dispensational friends say the temple sacrifices in the millennium are a new kind of communion, so not real sacrifices,but a reminder. So if Christ is truly present at communion, surely He cannot once again be present in temple sacrifice. What do you think?
Wine and grape juice start their lives as the same substance, and differ only in the treatment applied to them (fermentation vs pasteurization) changing their eventual composition. Modern pasteurized grape juice was actually invented to provide a non-alcoholic communion drink to Methodist churches (Thomas Welch, founder of Welch’s grape juice, was a Methodist minister), the urban legend I heard growing up Methodist was that they did this for the benefit of alcoholics in the congregation, so they wouldn’t be tempted to relapse. The reality possibly has more to do with a general opposition to alcohol, but there’s also probably a grain of truth in the legend.
I just don’t get why a strictly symbolic view is supposedly insufficient or inferior to a “real presence” view, seeing that the Bible does not use the phrase “real presence.” To me it just smacks of signaling to Catholics that “Oh yeah well we have that too.” How is it more “real presence” than the presence of Christ at someone’s baptism? I don’t get it. Someone explain it to me like I’m five. If Jesus actual body and blood are not physically present there, then it should not be called “real presence.” Why all the effort to use or retain that phrase? I’m Protestant btw.
It’s not Dr. Michael Heiser covered communion and pointed out how late antiquity and medieval views moved away from the original context and understanding into Christ being uniquely present. I’m reality Christ is always present with us when we gather together in worship.
Edit: Here are the videos of Michael Heiser breaking it down.
ua-cam.com/video/3Ki-a0bLDZM/v-deo.htmlsi=fThkrNtNN6tn7Y2b
ua-cam.com/video/KIaUa44zCNM/v-deo.htmlsi=NyizU57B7HKh5bET
The point of transubstantiation is that the bread and wine ARE the body and blood of Christ. They get transformed into the body and blood miraculously without appearing/seeming any different. It’s why some traditional Catholics do “Eucharist adoration”.
Consubstantiation says that the body and blood of Christ appear (physically and spiritually) in the same place as the bread and wine and coexist in the same space as the bread and wine (of course, you can’t taste the difference).
Spiritual presence says that the spiritual presence of the Lord enters the bread and wine, but the physical presence of Christ is in heaven.
Memorialism says that no part of the bread and wine has any of God’s presence. It’s just for remembrance (head knowledge) only.
The reason why people would think that way is that if Communion is a way to experience the presence/grace of God, you’ve effectively cut that off. It just becomes a man made ritual that isn’t necessary, is kinda weird, and maybe we should just study that particular Scripture to remember it instead. Turning the practices of the faith into an opportunity to achieve head knowledge deadens the faith in my view.
I go to a Chinese nondenominational church now, but I grew up as a Methodist.
I don't know if anyone will see this comment, but if you want to understand the catholic prospective on the lords supper, you should read. This is my Body by Bishop Barron
Gavin - I just wanted to point you to the current code of Canon Law. You should be able to google it since it is on the Vatican web site in English. See Canon 6
Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:
1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;
...
3/ any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code
I have been told that this last sentence voids any and all anathemas from previous councils as they are considered a penal law. Anathemas were a disciplinary matter meant for Catholics in a certain historical context. The term Anathema is no longer used in the current code of canon law. This does not mean its suddenly OK to teach that salvation is by faith alone now in the Catholic Church. The positive teaching of the Catholic Church on salvation still applies. But the canon proclaiming the anathemas no longer applies as it was a disciplinary matter.
You have raised this as an issue for you for a while now, and I thought I would try to make this clear for you.
God bless,
Daniel
Gavin, can you clarify to this long-term Memorialist: What precisely is experienced by the participant in the “Real Presence” view?
I’ve read all the great quotes (that you supply) about the spiritual and non-carnal partaking of Christ. But in terms of real-world experience, what is the noticeable impact?
For hypothetical example:
- Person A never participates in Communion.
- Person B is a monthly Memorialist.
- Person C participates monthly and with active faith embracing Real Presence.
- Person D participates in Real Presence weekly.
- Person E goes to all 3 morning services to get yet more of Christ weekly.
- Person F skipped church Sunday and missed out.
What actual distinctions are there in the life, faith, spiritual growth, and worshiping lives of these individuals?
Are we prepared to say that over time the spirituality will be deeper for Person E over D over C over B over Person A? And that person F was somehow debilitated by missing this past Sunday?
Is it simply like other opportunities to grow (I.e. listening to sermons, doing Bible study, engaging God relationally in prayer, worshiping meaningfully, serving sacrificially, loving another…) where we generally grow via participation and generally stagnate from our lack of participating?
Or is there something unique here in a truly tangible sense that is demonstrable and traceable?
Podcast topic opportunity?
La comunión es un sacramento, vía por la que la gracia de Dios actúa. Evidentemente influye en las personas. Los protestantes al no recibirla, ni considerarlo sacramento,están siendo privados de la gracia de Dios.
The Foursquare church officially holds to the Calvinist view that when the elements are received by faith real communion is experienced and it mediates to the believer the spiritual benefits of Christ’s death.
A friend was just asking about how real presence works and I had intended to send him your earlier video on it but now I'll use this one too! Real presence is absolutely something all Protestants should embrace as a beautiful and integral part of worship.
Same here!
What would you do if you truly believe that Jesus is present in the eucharist?,
would you not bow and prostrate yourself before Christ, would that not be so awesome, Christ really present in the church..
Would that not be the central worship for all churches, to break bread with Christ.
Didache (90AD) "The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles" - the earliest written catechism. The Lords instruction on how to worship Him:
"On the Lord's Day gather together, break bread and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure - - -"
@@jotunman627 Well there are parts of what you said that I very much affirm - we should give thanks to God with marvelous awe at his mercy and love for us to give us the Lord's Supper as a way of drawing closer to him, but no I would not bow in reverence to the bread and wine because I do not think that is the proper response laid out in scripture, or in the passages that you quoted. I very much agree with that last one that you quoted though, and it was my pleasure to participate in that very thing earlier today, giving thanks to him after confessing my sins, with many other believers, and then participating in the Lord's Supper together.
@@tategarrett3042 Catholics treat the consecrated communion host as the most sacred thing in the world.
For Catholics “going to Adoration,” is referring to Eucharistic Adoration.
Which is the worship of the Eucharist outside of the Mass. The Eucharistic Host is displayed in a monstrance on the altar so that all can see and pray in the presence of Christ. - To be actually with Christ, in prayer.
In Garabandal, a question was asked on where the angels got the communion host that was given to the children, Mary answered it was taken from the tabernacle of the nearby church. Even an angel cannot consecrate a host.
Satanist steal consecrated communion host to use in their black mass to mock and dishonor Christ.
Their entire service is a mockery of the Catholic Mass.
Most Satanists and real Witches can discern a Consecrated Host among thousands of unconsecrated hosts. - They are able to know - “Because of the burning hate I would feel toward that host, apart from all the others.” - a quote from a real Satanist
@@jotunman627 I think that does a good job of showing what Protestant concerns are about turning the Lord's Supper into a source of idolatry in a sense in which the bread and wine become objects of adoration and even talismans to be venerated. This seems to be a clear abuse of the Lord's Supper which is meant to be consumed frequently and in both kinds by all those who profess Christ and follow him wholeheartedly. It is interesting that Satanists have at times done such things to and with the bread but I would be cautious in drawing conclusions based on that since they are, well, demon-worshipers.
I am new to the Christian faith and was looking at Orthodox Christianity but I just can’t get past the icons / idols. Reading the Bible I just can’t rationalize this practice. I’m enjoying this channel, but I’m having a hard time finding a church.
The icons/ statue where used to explain the Scriptures. Catholics and Orthodox do not believe the icons and statues are gods.
Let us not forget why our reformers were burned for denying carnal presence in transubstantiation…
JC Ryle refuted transubstantiation in “Why our reformers were burned” page 33
1.) You spoil the blessed doctrine of Christ’s finished work when he died on the cross. A sacrifice that needs to be repeated is not a perfect and complete thing.
2.) You spoil the scriptural doctrine of the Christian ministry. You exalt sinful men into the position of mediators between God and man.
3.) You give to the sacramental elements of bread and wine an honor and veneration they were never meant to receive, and produce an idolatry to be abhorred of faithful Christians
4.) You overthrow the true doctrine of Christ’s human nature. If the body born of the Virgin Mary can be in more places than one at the same time, it is not a body like our own, and Jesus was not “the second Adam” in the truth of our nature
Great stuff as usual. Gavin, is there a systematic theology book you recommend?
I just trust that Christ would never give us a mere symbol. And that includes baptism.
No one was talking about mere symbols, so what are you even on about?
Thanks for getting this video out. As a lifelong Baptist, then transitioning into an Anglican Church for a year, it struck me just how much I heard within my Baptist churches everything the Lord's Supper was NOT, instead of all the beauty that it truly is. It cheapened my view of it (though the fear of taking it unworthily was ever present) until I understood it in a different light within the Anglican Church. I appreciated their use of an actual unleavened bread loaf and actual wine (as opposed to Welch's Grape Juice 🤦). But those elements may perhaps be more secondary.
I'm curious - if you'd be willing to share on here - how often you administer it within your congregation and how frequently you believe it should be given. Again, I was shocked to learn that Anglicans receive communion every Sunday, whereas in the Baptist churches I was a part of only did it maybe once a month, possibly less. The constant question I got asked from Baptist friends was, "Didn't that diminish its importance for you, taking it every week?" If anything though, it enhanced my view of the Lord's Supper, receiving it weekly.
Any way, sorry for the ramble, but just some things I've been thinking through since early 2022. Appreciate all the time and effort you put into these very informative videos!
Those are valid questions. Many protestant churches do not value it enough. The Catholic view of it being the literal body and blood and stressing it so much frankly icks me out. They've brought it to cannabilism. I've had the occasional honest Catholic even share they share the same view. Yet, the constant belief that it is literally his body has kept the Catholics and Orthodox to reverence it more. I can reverence it just as much w/ a deeper understanding of it. It is so much more than Jesus' flesh. It is the meeting of the old and new covenant. It is what God instructed the Jews to do w/ their atonement sacrifices, that they also ate for thousands of years. it is the whole congregation doing it in unision, showing Christ in us and we in him. Protestant communion shows this ritual better in that last respect, because they do partake of most Holy Communion in unision, unlike the Catholic assembly line method. Plus, we have never lost the ritual of taking both kinds, as Catholics have. I've always found that odd. They reverence the Eucharist so much, and consider their method so superior, yet they don't take both kinds, and their form of ritual has vastly changed from the biblical model, which is clearly laid out.
Until the Liturgical Renewal Movement of the '60s and '70s, many Anglicans (Episcopalians then) didn't celebrate Holy Communion weekly either. Morning Prayer was a common service on Sunday morning. When they did have communion, they would have "Morning Prayer with Holy Communion". It took a while, and the new BCP 1979, for Holy Communion to be restored as the principal service on Sunday morning. It seems normal now, but it took almost a generation for the change to take hold. See, so there's hope for the Baptists after all!
Maybe you should check out Gavin's church website and see how he does his church service..
Anglican here, too.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 You said: "The Catholic view of it being the literal body and blood and stressing it so much frankly icks me out."
Catholics treat the consecrated communion host as the most sacred thing in the world.
Eucharistic Adoration is where in the Eucharistic Host is displayed in a monstrance on the altar so that all can see and pray in the presence of Christ. - To be actually with Christ, in prayer.
In Garabandal, a question was asked on where the angels got the communion host that was given to the children.
Mary answered it was taken from the tabernacle of the nearby church.
Even an angel cannot consecrate a host.
Satanist steal consecrated communion host to use in their black mass to mock and dishonor Christ.
Their entire service is a mockery of the Catholic Mass.
Most Satanists and real Witches can discern a Consecrated Host among thousands of unconsecrated hosts. - They are able to know - “Because of the burning hate I would feel toward that host, apart from all the others.” - a quote from a real Satanist.
This video buries the lede, since it barely mentions that Andrew Gifford lived for 184 years
Great video as always. But you shouldn’t drop bombs about spiritual presence being closer to Transubstantiation than Consubstantiation without telling us why! 😂
Seriously though, looking forward to the director’s cut of this video with more detail.
Hate to volunteer you for more work but wish you present historic view of baptism... so good thx. We Baptist are weak on sacraments i think.
When you say in 3:56 that Christ's physical body is locally present in heaven and that doesn't change, what scriptures would you point to in support of this? I just find this idea to be a little silly - as if Jesus couldn't transcend space and be present physically in the sacrament. Certainly he ascended to "fill all things" and IN him all things hold together. He is God isn't he? What prevents Him from sharing his divine attributes with his human nature? (genuine question)
I love your stripe of Baptists. I often find myself being hard on baptists, but then I have to just remember the based traditional groups too
Gavin, I very much appreciate your videos. They are always clear, well constructed, and sincere. Your love for our Lord shines brightly, and His love shines through you. Have a wonderful Thanksgiving!
I’m a baptist and I hold this view as well ☺️
The first Ark contained the Word of God in Stone, the Manna that fed God's people, Mary's body contained the Word Enfleshed, the Bread of Life. Take and Eat 🙏
What are the Cranmer and Vergmilli books you reference?
I believe it's "A Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Our Savior Christ"
Thank you so much for this. Lately, as a baptist I’ve been on the outside of what the members of my church believe and see in God’s word bc I have been studying God’s word with eyes of the Holy Spirit and hoping they will begin to see the same but I’m afraid it’s putting me outside. This is one of those topics that needs more study and historic understanding that most Christians don’t want to do or have been told not to do or you become a heretic.
Check out Brant Pitre's book, "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist" and "The Lamb's Supper" by Scott Hahn. Bishop Barron has a couple of videos on the Real Presence on his UA-cam channel.
Could you clarify what constitutes a ‘valid church’, as the husband and father of my family, do I need to be ‘ordained’ to presenting communion to my family?
Also if one is at a liberal church with a lesbian trans pastor who says Jesus wasn't a real person and they hold communion and I was there and took communion would I receive?
Lutheran here. Yeah, Consubstantiation is how the Reformed like to describe our Eucharistic theology. It's better, though, just to imagine the intemperate Luther yelling, "Hoc est corpus meum!" (this is my body) at Marburg. That pretty much gets to the point.
I was a reformed Baptist until recently who had a "spiritual presence" view of the Lord's supper. I am now a Lutheran, in part because of their view on Baptism and the Lord's Supper were specifically pursuasive. I have a few points I think would be of benefit to Dr. Ortland to make this conversation a little bit more clear:
A better way of thinking about broad categories of views of the sacraments is: (1) Memorial Feast (Zwingli); (2) Spiritual Presence (Calvin); and (3) Physical Presence (Lutherans, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Orthodox). Within the third category in particular (but in some cases, also, within the second) there is a question of //what// you hold to by saying "Physical Presence."
There is the "dogmatic theory" perspective; i.e., you must believe physical presence means a certain thing. The Roman Catholics have this viewpoint, and they specifically tie the transubstantiation view as infallible dogma.
The second view we could call the "guard rail" perspective; i.e., you must view physical presence but you can have variation as to the "how" behind it. As a Lutheran, this is our viewpoint. You must hold "the body and blood of Christ are truly present." AC Art. X. "They are truly administered with those things that are seen, bread and wine." Ap Art. X. That being said, and in large part because of the Reformed Church, a Lutheran must hold that "Christ's body and blood are received with the bread and wine, not only spiritually through faith, but also orally. Yet not in a 'Capernaitic' way, but in a supernatural, heavenly way, because of the sacramental union." Ep. Art. VII, Aff. para. 6. As such a Lutheran may not hold to a view where we "eat[] Christ's body, as though His flesh were torn with the teeth and digested like other foods." The short hand for this view is "in, with, and under" to describe these guard rails. The reason why Lutherans tend to reject "consubstantiation" is because that viewpoint is actually outside the guard rails (as it implies a mixing of the two substances, which this formulation rejects). Additionally, Lutherans tend to reject transubstantiation because it implies rejecting a true presence of the elements themselves.
Another group that utilizes this "guard rail" approach is the Orthodox churches. It is not my idea to discuss, but it is my understanding they require one to confess it is a divine, mysterious, miracle. Due to this, some may argue more detailed explanations (including transubstantiation) should not be held (because it would reject the mysteriousness of the sacrament).
The important idea behind the "guard rail" approach is a recognition that there are some ways to formulate or explain what we mean by physical presence that could lead one astray, but because of the mysterious nature of the union between Christ and the elements we cannot definitely say it occurs a specific way.
The final view, which may be more in theory, is an open view. This is not necessarily a confessional viewpoint, but it instead is where a church's only requirement is that a person confesses that Christ is more than spiritually present. Church's from the Pietist traditions appear to take this viewpoint, but I have also discovered some LCMS churches are beginning to take this approach under the idea of a "Close Table." The Anglican Church, in some ways, has this view by default insofar as a minister takes a physical presence approach (since they do not have any official stance on the matter).
Memorial for Jews means that you live again the event that occurred in the past. You are connecting the Present with the Past. During the Mass that is a Memorial you are connecting the Present with the moment when Jesus sacrificed. The Sacrificed of Jesus started with the Last Supper and continue when He died in the Cross, then it is the real presence of Jesus in the bred and wine.
I would rather hear where you get this idea from scripture than where in church history various people went astray from scripture.
Read 1 Cor
Saving this video to send to others who don’t understand historic baptist views. Thank you for your scholarship!
I have believed, for some time now, that Christ is really and truly spiritually present, not in the elements themselves, but in the event; in the"doing" of communion/the supper. Thoughts on this?
The Orthodox view is similar to the RC view but we refuse to use Aristotelian categories of thought. We just say, “it’s the real presence” and leave it at that. There’s no rationalization of how it happens, or even when the presence happens. When it comes to the 1672 confession, that’s a hotly debated document since it also affirms purgatory and we do not believe in that. We also do not believe in infant damnation, which it implicitly implies as well. (As a universalist I obviously don’t believe this but even your most hardline Orthodox theologian will agree with this.)
At 20:09 you said that the “spiritual presence view leaves open the mechanics of how this happens.” Yet I think even the spiritual presence view stipulates about mystical matters more than we can responsibly claim. This is why Orthodoxy just leaves it as a Holy Mystery and does not intrude further.
Now, when are baptists (Americans) going to STOP with the horrid grape juice. It just feels fake with welches grape juice
Thank you so much Dr. Ortlund! As a Baptist who spent time in the Episcopalian Church then back to Baptist, I sincerely missed the liturgy and the Eucharistic service. I LOVE #4! I decided I was taking Christ’s body and blood in some way even in my memorialist Baptist church. It occurred to me that what I was really doing was rejecting *sacerdotalism.* I receive the Real Presence by *faith*, even in a memorialist church, even in grape juice. I had no idea about this part of Baptist history, thank you so much again.
Nobody says Christ was God and Man "in a spiritual sense only." If Christ can be fully God and fully Man, the Eucharist can be fully Christ and fully bread. I don't find this complicated.
I always cringe when I hear low church prots say hes spiritually present but then deny God is present.
I love this. Thanks, Gavin! I'm still seeking the truth on this. But a spiritual Real Presence makes the most sense to me. Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation make the least in my mind. Catholics have told me, "Enjoy your snack." How rude! Even if you hold the memorialist point of view, I don't know any church that takes Jesus' sacrifice for our sins lightly. Of course we all read John 6 and came to different conclusions, but to me, vs 63 is the ringer... "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you-they are full of the Spirit and life." When people say they're really eating the flesh, I quote that verse. Jesus is saying it's not a matter of flesh, but a spiritual matter. Next time I receive the elements I'll come into it with a different mindset and see what the Spirit has for me.
The verses in John 6 that precede this verse, Jesus constantly refers to “my” flesh. He is talking about HIS body. The verse you quote he talks about “the” flesh. He is talking about something completely different. Protestants misuse this verse.
@@billmartin3561 If we look at it all in context... On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you-they are full of the Spirit and life.
---
So, they were still discussing what Jesus said just seconds before. Confirmed when he says, "the words I have spoken to you..." It's all still a part of the "bread of life" teaching that he just provided. God bless.
@@billmartin3561 Catholic conveniently ignore this verse, because it just doesn't fit w/ the added and not biblical doctrine of transubstantiation. So it's just a tosser.
@@billmartin3561 Do you really think Jesus was teaching about taking communion, a whole year before the Last Supper took place? If you read the entire chapter carefully, you might notice the one thing Jesus repeats most often (the point He's trying to get across to these spiritually resistant people who want more free food) is that they need to *believe in Him.* See verses 28-29, 35, 40, and 47.
"The flesh" is a phrase and it is not the same as "my flesh".
The flesh means the thinking and the feelings of being a human being.
Because your logical explanation of John chapter 6 is based on human thinking based on human observation, you can't comprehend how Jesus could give his flesh to eat even when Jesus compared it with the manna. You reasoning is based on "the flesh"
Jesus' teaching that he was the bread sent down from heaven and we must eat it, that's a spiritual teaching.
Catholic's interpretation is a spiritual teaching, not a teaching of the flesh.
Reformed Baptist for 20 years now Lutheran. I made the move due to Lutheranism balancing the Father's with Scripture, and the important point of discerning the Lord’s Body in the Supper.
Do you have valid ministerial priests?
@@Lerian_V Lutheran’s do have valid ministerial priests.
It was your content on this subject that opened my eyes to real presence within the eucharist, and now communion Sunday is my favorite Sunday of the month! God bless you richly.
great to hear that!
The plain word's in Scripture, the teachings of the early Church Fathers and God's Eucharistic miracles demonstrate that both transubstantiation and Apostolic Succession are reality. If you want to obey God and eat the flesh and drink the blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ then be Catholic or Orthodox.
Dr Ortlund! Catholic here. This is a very informative and well done exposition on Baptist views of the real presence! Far from disagreeing or "hating" what you were just about to say, I would actually suggest you flip-flop 2 and 3! I fully agree that 2 and 4 are far and away the closest of the four types you lay out! And it's obvious. Under option 4, we (Catholics (and I believe Orthodox as well)) believe that Christ is indeed present spiritually in the Eucharist! I don't disagree with your statements on the kind of "broader union with Christ" and "feasting on Christ" apart from the Eucharist. Of course, we feast on Christ in his words as well.
Of course, Christ's presence is far more than just spiritual
It's almost ironic, when you say (in section three) that Catholics have to "read in" transubstantiation or that we somehow believe that all Church Fathers were always in 100 percent accord. They were not! For example, Justin Martyr presents the more Catholic theory:
For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change (transmutation) of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus. - St. Justin Martyr First Apology 66
And for every Theodoret that seems to deny transubstantiation or change in nature, we can propose an Irenaeus, a Tertullian, an Origen, a Cyril or Jerusalem, an Ambrose, and the list goes on, who all teach what will eventually come to be understood as transubstantiation. As always, whenever we dabble in the deep waters of the Fathers, we must always consider two things: does any particular statement made by a Church Father accord with the teaching of the Church?; and does that statement follow from and accord with scripture? The Apostolic Churches are fundamentally scripture and tradition oriented, but this doesn't mean we take the Fathers AS scripture.
So what did Jesus say and do about this matter?
He says more than once ego eimi ho artos ho katabas ek tou ouranou --- I am the bread having come down from heaven.
And the people who heard him sounded somewhat like Theodoret: is this not Joseph's son? How is it he's saying he came down from heaven!
Jesus told them to stop grousing and grumbling. And then he lays down his amen amen lego humin --- truly truly I tell you: ego eimi ho artos tes zoes --- I am the bread of life. He intensified! Ego eimi ho artos ho zon --- I am the living bread! Then he nails it, saying of this bread that he gives: he sarx mou --- my flesh. This is meat. Red meat. Not an impossible burger but 100% animal flesh.
And, like Theodoret, they continued to grouse and grumble, arguing that he can't possibly mean actual sarka --- flesh!
And Jesus lays out yet another amen amen lego humin --- truly truly I say to you! Ean me phagete ten sarka tou Houiou tou anthropou, kai piete autou to haima --- if you shall not have eaten the flesh of the Son of man and drunken his blood... He gar sarx mou alethes estin brosis, kai to haima mou alethes estin posis --- for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.
And he hammers home AGAIN that this is the bread coming down from heaven. I always write out the Greek so that we can see clearly what the scripture actually reported. Here John is not saying that the bread is bread and the wine is wine, remaining unchanged. He is saying that Christ IS the bread and that the bread is REAL FLESH --- meat --- and that the wine is REAL BLOOD. It is carnal. It is local. The bread and the wine change. Very fundamentally.
As always, I rejoice whenever any kind of Protestant article of belief or doctrine of faith approaches that of the Church! It is a sign of fraternity. And on the spiritual real presence, I think we share some warm fraternity here! For example, when I participate in the liturgy from home, the priest always makes provision for precisely this --- a spiritual communion for those of us who can't be physically present.
But it is also a sign of broken unity between Baptists and Apostolic Christians. While the spiritual real presence is, as I would argue, a true understanding, it is not the full understanding as taught by the Church, upheld by many Fathers and as proclaimed in the Gospel and handed down by the Apostles, even beginning with Paul.
On the matter of the mouse or the unbaptised eating the body, I think I'd concur on the yes and no nature of that question! I'd say that, yes the mouse is eating our lord's body --- but he's a mouse and can neither eat Christ beneficially nor detrimentally. For the unbaptised, who is completely and utterly ignorant of what the body of Christ is, I think his situation would be more like the mouse's. For a Christian who rejects the Apostolic faith, but acting within his own Protestant context, I'd say he's not eating Christ's body at all, so it really is a matter of faith whether he's just eating a cracker that one can get in the grocery or a cracker that has some "added" symbolism such as you mentioned early in your video.
The only way I'd say that a Protestant can get into any kind of trouble is if he, knowing what the Church teaches, entered a Catholic liturgy and took the Eucharist knowing that he rejects what the Eucharist actually is. I can't imagine any Protestant actually doing this --- it would be insulting to Jesus, it would be an insult to the Catholics around him and it would be an insult to his own conscience! This would be a highly unworthy reception of Christ's body, and this is literally why we (Catholics) refuse the open communion theory that many Protestants share. We do it for your own good!, so that you won't accidentally or even piously participate in something that you don't believe in. It's also why we can not take communion in any Protestant church.
One other thing to consider, Gavin, as a sort of "hostile witness" is the curious practice of (some) Satanists who steal consecrated hosts from Catholic churches. I won't say what they do with the body, but it is a compelling witness to the physical real presence that even the guys on the other team recognise and believe that Christ is bodily present in the Eucharist. From what I understand, they don't steal at all from Protestant churches and when taking from Catholic churches are careful not to take the unconsecrated hosts from the storage cupboard, but go straight to the tabernacle in stead.
In the end, I think you make a good case for a broader understanding of various modes of interacting with and consuming Christ --- and I think these are modes that Baptist and Catholic alike agree on, and I for one would argue that Baptists clearly receive grace within their understanding of the lord's supper. But there is always more! You kind of keep shying away from the obvious truth, which is that while spiritual real presence is a thing, it's not the whole thing. If you posit that the Catholic has to "read transubstantiation into" the Eucharist, I'd argue that the Baptist has to either close his eyes or "read transubstantiation out of" the Eucharist.
I love your analysis but you included practically no biblical references for what is the proper biblical perspective. What the Church fathers thought is interesting but it’s of little to no significance if it doesn’t align with the teachings of the Bible.
the purpose of this video was historical overview; I have a few other videos on the Lord's Supper that might be of use
Not sure what you mean by “real presence” but I’m going to listen and find out 😂
Well. I’ve always been looking for permission to hold this view as a Reformed Baptist. And wouldn’t you know it, it’s in 1689! The more you know.
Baptists need to look more to church history on issues like this!
Gavin where can I easily access the Charles Spurgeon Quote you cited, I cannot find it anywhere
I like your approach. Good theology should exist in order to combat bad theology, but really pursuing Christ as you find Him in the gospel is more important than getting all the theological details in order.
Is Christ's spiritual presence in the communion not a "real presence"?
I would say it is a true presence rather than a real presence. What I mean by that is Catholics and others say for a real presence to be true Christ must be present actually in the elements. What I would say is Christ is not present in but through the elements which is what Gavin was getting at. I believe Christ is truly present through our participation in remembering him.
Catholics do call receiving the Eucharist are spiritual food and spiritual drink btw
You might be the first Catholic I've seen to say this. There are a number of protestants that recognize this, but almost every Catholic I've encountered online about loses it over this and will launch into a big argument about it's all literally Christ's body and blood and it invariably turns into a big ordeal to triumph in this regard. This thread will turn into that soon enough.
@@saintejeannedarc9460, a Catholic priest literally says this at every single mass. "Through your goodness we have this wine to offer. It will become for us our spiritual drink."
@@brettsalkeld9735 Then it must be a traditional holdover from before the doctrine of transubstantiation became entrenched. If the priest even calls it spiritual drink, not sure why online Catholics argue so stridently against any mention of the host being spiritual nourishment then.
@@brettsalkeld9735Blessed be God forever!
@@saintejeannedarc9460, many Catholics who devote their time to online sparring don't know the tradition as well as they think they do. So that's one factor. Another is that, since the Reformation, many Catholics will reflexively reject something they imagine to be Protestant without actually looking to see if it might be a point of commonality rather than a point of contention. One thing I love about Dr. Ortlund's work (and that he seems to appreciate about mine) is that we both refuse to be separated from one another by caricatures of the others position. "Spiritual" presence has come to operate, in the minds of many Catholics and Protestants, as something "less" than Real Presence. And so Catholics often assume it must be unCatholic. But "spiritual" is a perfectly acceptable adjective for Christ's Eucharistic presence, alongside "real," "true," "substantial," or "sacramental."
Wonderful.
Ive read the 1689 LBC many times and missed the part about spiritual presence every time. Thank you for bringing this up as it forced me to read it again and see what I missed before.
Dear Gavin [PLEASE READ :) ]-- One thing I've always valued highly about your videos is the experience of so to speak spending time with you -- having you come into my home and talk a while. I'd therefore like to cast a vote for your not using the video technique of putting in little jump cuts. I know it's popular, but it makes it like I'm watching an edited video of you rather than having you talk to me. (Of course, it IS an edited video in any case, basically, but you know what I mean.) I realize you tend to be concerned about your videos not lasting too long, but: (a.) Is that really an issue with your viewers -- if so, I'm so surprised! (b.) I hope so much there's a way for you to be happy with your videos' length without the jump cuts! In any case, I'm grateful for your work and your gentle manner. -- Lee
I haven't noticed yet in this one, and haven't really noticed it in others. We know he is very strapped for time and has 5 kids. So there's bound to be times when a kid comes in, or some family matter comes up, and he has to continue after. I'm pretty sure he doesn't edit them in for the sake of it. I can't even watch videos where they do constant jump cuts. Too distracting, and when it was super trendy, it made me a bit dizzy.
Nice! Thanks for this video! I'll watch it after work. This is just what I was thinking about today in church
Question: if the term "real presence was coined by the church and given a meaning, then why do those whom reject the meaning the church gave to the term still use the same term "real presence" to refer to something different!? Why not call it "Spiritual presence"
Been honest seems to be quite deceptive tactic of language manipulation..... We all know too well about that today
Yeah , I don't think it's deceptive in nature, I think the people who subscribe to this view do honestly believe in real presence. However it does seem counter intuitive to intentionally change the definition of a pre established term to make it seem like you're being connected with tradition.
Very enlightening. Thank you.
One question, do you believe that children should not partake of Communion since they may not have faith?
Mark 10:14: "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.
Thank you!
Self-Identification is a serious problem. If the personal experience has power over the reality of a communal ritual then by definition there can't be "real presence".
The woman priesthood issue could then just be decided by saying to oneself that the priest is female, regardless of the reality.
A wild tiger gets inside your church, one decides their inner understanding of the reality of the presence of the tiger does so at their own peril.
Moses didn't receive an open ended phenomenon. He encountered Christ humbly and then based on that encounter, received teaching.
I'm rather inclined to agree with you when you say, " If the personal experience has power over the reality of a communal ritual then by definition there can't be "real presence"." I think the real presence of Christ is in the believer in/follower of Christ, whether that believer/follower is taking communion or just living life. Romans 8:9-10; 2 Cor. 13:5.
Uhhhhhh
.. no. We can't truly understand the Trinity either..but real presence is just not reconciled in the Holy Word.
As a subdeacon in Byzantine Catholic who grew up in a Dutch Calvinist tradition I find this video to be honest and engaging with truth. Thank you for your sincerity in pursuing truth.
St Theodoret's writings on Eranistes written in 447 is explicitly condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council of Second Constantinople in 553.
But even if Calvinists don't accept 553 then the text still problematic because in same paragraph it supports veneration of icon as the image represents the object depicted.
Brett Salkeld did an excellent analysis explaining that transubstantiation is not a physical change. He pointed out that had this was the case then after consuming the Eucharist it can't be discarded in toilet because it's holy. But rather because the transelementation is metaphysical then once the physical forms cease then there's no more metaphysical transformation. Transubstantiation is not about physical transformation. In fact it's impossible because had that been the case then it would be literally cannibalism. Rather it's metaphysical transformation whereby the perceptible properties remain. Similar to incarnation. Union of physical nature and metaphysical nature. Analogous to metal ignited by fire. The physical property remain (accidental nature) but it has been transubstantiated into new metaphysical nature as fire sword. Transubstantiation and incarnation don't deny the existence of physical nature (bread, wine, body, and soul) but rather argue it has been transformed into new metaphysical nature. In theosis the old man is gone and entirely replaced metaphysically by the new man wholly deified.
Another issue with Calvinist real presence is its denial of St Cyril's second letter which was dogmatized at Ephesus on the Eucharistic adoration of the unbloody sacrifice. R C Sproul had a video explaining why a sacrifice even though unbloody is pagan and not Christianity. The problem is the worship of Eucharist as an unbloody sacrifice is dogmatic at Ephesus.
"For even after the consecration the mystic symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance, figure, and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before. But they are regarded as what they have become, and believed so to be, and are worshipped as being what they are believed to be. Compare then the image with the archetype, and you will see the likeness, for the type must be like the reality."
You wrote: "Transubstantiation is not about physical transformation. In fact it's impossible..." I agree that it's impossible, however the Roman Catholic Church teaches very clearly that transubstantiation *necessarily includes* physical transformation. Roman Catholic clergy under Queen Mary's reign burned alive at least 288 English reformers in 4 years, from 1555 to 1558, and one of the main reasons why they were condemned as heretics was because they would not recant their belief that Christ is present in the Eucharist in a spiritual manner only, and not corporally present. (Source: "Five English Reformers," by J.C. Ryle) The RCC was deadly serious about it!
@@rexlion4510 Gavin Ortlund gives his personal recommendation on the works of Brett Salkeld. As a former Dutch Calvinist who converted to Byzantine Catholic I entirely second Gavin Ortlund endorsement. Brett entirely and meticulously refuted the false history that the Catholic Church profess carnal and physical transformation. Not only impossible but also prohibited by God's immutable law since the beginning of creation against cannibalism. Brett clarified in his interview with Gavin that had the transformation were carnal and physical then after consuming one can't be discarded in toilet. Brett pointed out historically when this was debated and condemned.
The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church profess the Eucharistic adoration of the unbloody sacrifice which as Martin Luther stated witnessed unanimously by the entire Church without disagreement. Spiritual presence is Nestorian. Because Calvin denied communication of attributes between the two natures to one another. You can read Martin Luther condemnation of John Calvin extracalvinisticum belief. Calvin argued the humanity of Christ remain united to the Logos but physically localized in heaven. Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, and Anglicans opposed this novelty. Because at Ephesus St Cyril's second letter accepted as dogmatic. In it Cyril wrote that the flesh present in the chalice and transcend physical limitations because that flesh is God's flesh and entirely deified. Theosis communicate divine attributes into the deified flesh. This is what St Peter wrote regarding theosis namely participation with the uncreated divinity. Unless the humanity of Christ is in the chalice then what you have in the chalice would be a Nestorian Christ. This is why Martin Luther explicitly and categorically condemned John Calvin extracalvinisticum because the humanity has transcended created limitations and receives attributes fitting for divinity due to communicatio idiommata between the two natures. Calvin and Nestorius accepted communication of attributes not between the two natures but to the person. This is why John Owen explicitly taught that during earthly ministry Christ entirely emptied Himself kenotically and His miracles entirely from Holy Spirit aiding and empowering the humanity. This view is Nestorian. That's why Martin Luther accused John Calvin to be a Nestorian.
In regards to torture and death penalty, the Catholic Church has formally and categorically condemn it similar to how John Calvin involved in permitting the burning of Michael Servetus despite of having power to prevent it or with the infamous burning of St Joan of Arc.
@@AdithiaKusno I do not see how anyone (Salkeld or otherwise) can contradict the clear statement by the Council of Trent on the subject. One of the Canons of Trent (which has never been retracted) states, "If any one denieth, that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained really, truly, *and substantially,* the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, *and consequently the whole Christ;* ...let him be anathema."
This Canon is saying that the consecrated elements become "the whole" Jesus Christ. The very body and blood are "substantially" (i.e., in substance) present. The substance of a body is its physicality. The substance of blood is physical in nature along with all of its inherent properties. In other words, the physical substance of His body and blood must be believed by a person to be present in the host and cup, or that person is "anathema" to the RCC, the church which claimed itself to be the sole mediator of salvation when it taught for centuries that "outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation."
I was baptized, catechized, and confirmed in the Roman Catholic Church. God called me out of the RCC when I was 18, but due to that church's brainwashing (they taught me that I'd be damned to hell if I left and died outside of the RC faith) I resisted the Holy Spirit for 8 more years. Now I am in my 60s. I possess photocopied pages from one of the books they used to teach us the Catechism. It says, "After the substance of the bread and wine had been changed, only the _appearances_ of bread and wine remained...the _appearances_ of bread and wine _without_ their _substance_ ." (italics copied from the original text). The book I am quoting from had the official "imprimatur" and "Nihil Obstat" of the RCC and was fully approved as being correct in doctrine.
If Salkeld says differently than the Catechism book I was taught from and differently than Trent, I'd say he is a modern revisionist of actual history.
@@AdithiaKusno I will say that your reasoning tends to show why a "spiritual presence" concept is not proper. Although I am now an Anglican Christian (emphasis on "Christian", for it is Christ crucified and risen who defines my identity) I am more persuaded than ever than a memorialist/symbolic view is best, so long as due reverence is included.
@@rexlion4510 Trent dogmatized that the Eucharist is entirely Christ substantially but nowhere Trent interpret this to imply physical transformation. And this is true to this day. You can't find any Church fathers disagree not even St Theodoret that Gavin Ortlund quoted. Because the word physis used by St Theodoret refers to physicality of bread and wine which remain after transelementation. This is what St Aquinas refer to as accidental nature. St Damascene apply this accidental nature to the humanity of Christ after incarnation because the human subsistence is anhypostasis it has no existence by itself other than exist assumed by the Logos. Accident doesn't mean it's illusory or has no physical reality. Brett Salkeld is defending how Tridentine fathers understood itself. I highly recommend you to read his book or his interview with Gavin Ortlund. One easy example to affirm that Trent deny physical transformation is that after communion if it's physical then no one could discarded it in toilet. It was debated before Trent whether after consumed it stays as Holy Eucharist or cease and can be discarded in toilet. This is why Tridentine fathers avoided the use of physical transformation. Transubstantiation is metaphysical transformation not physical. You can verify in the lab the physical properties stay as St Theodoret stated. It's the metaphysical transformation that transformed the bread and the wine into Christ. You may argue that this is historical revisionism but this is not. You can ask any Assyrian Church of the East, Oriental Orthodox, and Eastern Orthodox if after consumption it stays as Eucharist in the digestive system? They will confirm to you it is not. Therefore bread and wine can be discarded in toilet because the transformation is never physical. This is what Trent dogmatized and always everywhere professed by the Church everywhere and at all time since the beginning. Ask any Assyrians, or Coptics, or Greeks. No one will say otherwise.
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with Gavin on this one. Jesus and the Apostle Paul said the Lord's supper is an act of remembrance. Nothing more can be added to this clear statement; it's an act of remembrance, and that's where it needs to be understood. Adding to this, layers of stipulations and technical necessities are more akin to the Romanist idolatry of the Eucharist.
Yes, we are to partake in the Lord's supper with honor and faith, but it is just a remembrance of what Jesus did for us upon the cross. The Lord's supper can be done by two or even one Christian, with or without a "Preist or Pastor." The idea expressed is to remember and honor the Lord Jesus Christ and what he did for us in the scourging and death on the cross. It's not meant to build layers of religious complexity of rituals and rules to something beautiful and simple.
(Luke 22:19, NASB) "And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in [remembrance] of Me."
(1 Corinthians 11:24-26, NASB) "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in [remembrance] of Me." In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in [remembrance] of Me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes."
Blessings †
Greatly enjoyed this video.
The last point is interesting because I've refused communion at certain churches based off the memorial meal idea.
Someone said to me (and this stuck), "if you don't think Christ is at communion, He'll honor that belief and won't be there."
Peace and grace to you! The Oriental Orthodox Believe it’s the real body and blood of Christ that we receive in a mystery ineffable.
Our Lord Jesus Christ said it is his body and blood. We take it at face value. We don’t have to understand how.
While the video even with its wandering thought process is focused on what some Baptist, some places, sometimes believe... Since Dr. O did bring up what he wants us to believe is the one and only Catholic Dogma regarding the Eucharist (at least in his mind) that of Transubstantiation, there is much more. Starting with the basics of the Sacraments, (all seven according to the Catholic and Orthodox teaching) The Church teaches that the Sacraments are the work and action of Christ Jesus, not of the priest, a bishop or even the Pope. While some Sacraments, (the Eucharist and Penance) do require a priest to be confected validly, it is according to Catholic teaching, Christ's priesthood, which He shares with those ordained to Holy Orders, not the personal possession of any individual that He uses in order to work with our souls. Others like Baptism, and Marriage do not require a priest in extraordinary circumstances. Just as He breathed on the Apostles and told them "Who's sins you forgive..." What they do in these sacraments is done because Christ promised and gave authority for it. While Transubstantiation is a definition in the Latin Church, used to describe what happens when Christ acts at the Eucharistic Sacrifice, Eastern Catholics who use a different language, and hold the same beliefs describe the Corporal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist using their own culture and language, which while different than the Latin definition, is not contrary to it. Transubstantiation is also a reaction to the abuses both of lax Catholics and denial of the Apostolic Father's teachings by various Protestant groups who battled, sometimes physically, often times with condemnations and curses on the other's souls for not holding to what one or the other held.
Dr. O as usual misses or omits the Catholic stance regarding God's Grace as taught by the Catholic Church. We will start with Baptism. The Catholic Church has always taught that even the Baptism done by a heretic if it is done with water, the Trinitarian formula and the simple intention of doing what Christians hold as a sacred act is valid. Up until the early 20th Century various Protestant sects, and many Orthodox Churches re-baptized anyone entering into their communion absolutely. As it is important in Catholic teaching that one be baptized, any convert who was baptized according to the above was accepted without re-baptism. If there was a doubt, such as someone who came from a communion which used Rose Water, or flower petals etc (Yup some Armenians and Protestants did so.) or folks who followed the divergences of people like the Episcopal Bishop Pike who presumed to Baptize in the name of the Creator, Redemer and Spirit of Truth, were at the very least baptized conditionally. With the words, "If you are not baptized, I baptize you...." So, the crying about those mean Catholics who say I never received the Eucharist are a bit of a sad little show.
As to the Eucharist. Yes the Catholic Church would say, Dr. O has never received the Eucharist, in that he has never received bread and or wine consecrated by a priest (Catholic Orthodox, or a small group of other sects which the CC holds have valid priests) But he hides of omits behind his protests, the Catholic Church holds that while we as Catholics are bound to revealed truth, and to practice the Faith as the Church has held since it's foundation... God is not bound to this and can and does out of His love for mankind give His grace even without valid Sacraments.
So in reality it is the Catholic Church which says, "Perhaps Dr. O has never received a validly consecrated Eucharist, but God is not limited by that and can give His graces even to those who well intentioned do not follow the Apostolic Faith." Dr. O would say. Nope Catholics don't dunk, so they don't Baptize, Catholics hold a wrong idea of the Eucharist and worship Christ in what He told us was His Body and Blood, so they are not followers of the teachings I hold, and I reject their accretions. Which one looks at the other with Christian charity?
As an aside, I do love accretions. My library started out with a few dozen books and now is composed of over 60,000 volumes, (mostly Catholic, but also various Protestant sects, Mormon JW and Orthodox as well as part of my grandfather's Rabbinic Library) Accretions are not always the bugaboo Dr. O tries to scare us with. Dr. O's ideas about the Baptist teachings on the Eucharist, which he himself admits in the video would be looked at as boarding on Catholic ideas, and accretions to other Baptists.
I know it is hard to cover everything in a video, but sometimes it seems Dr. O's Omissions of Catholic teaching is hopefully simply ignorance of the full depth of Catholic thought, and he will not stop reading on the Catholic position because his apparent shallow understanding is what he thinks to be the entire teaching.
Regardless of the person's faith or worthiness the bread and wine that has been mystically instituted into the true Body and Blood of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ is indeed His objective true physical presence that must be glorified, worshiped with fear and trembling. As the beloved St. Paul the Evangelist writes warning the church in Corinth; 27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. 30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. (1 Cor. 11:27-30)
As a Presbyterian member of a Baptistic Reformed Church, I share your view. The Eucharist is a real means of grace. The Eucharist is the celebration of our Union with Christ, and he communes with us when we partake. The elements are symbolic but points to the real spiritual presence indwelling the believer. You express this far more eloquently than I do.
The Lutheran view I find a bit off-putting in its use of Aristotelian categories of substance and accidents. So does Aquinas, a thoroughgoing Aristotelian, though his view uses the same terminology in supporting transubstantiation. Sadly, traditional non-1689 Baptists seem to have adopted a Zwinglian view of the Eucharist as part of a trifecta that also includes semi-Pelagian soteriology (even Arminian Roger Olsen wrote about his concern with this in 2012) and of course Dispensationalism. But those other two members of the non-Reformed Baptist trifecta are off-topic for the current discussion.
@TruthUnites @Dr Ortlund whats your opinion on @Dr. Ricardo Castañón Gómez, one of the principal investigators for many Eucharist miracles. Or just Eucharist miracles themselves? Thanks and GOD Bless your family and you. Robert from Puerto Rico 🇵🇷
Interesting take on this. Some good points. It’s still really hard for me to listen to one person interpreting what he thinks some church fathers may have meant when they said something. Honest question, and I’m not being rhetorical, why should this view be accepted? Like, by what authority can this view be trusted? Again, I’m asking honestly, because Dr. Gavin Ortland says this is what some church fathers and reformers meant by real presence, I should accept that view? Again, why should I be compelled to believe that? Thanks for the videos.
It wasn't made clear to me, but did the memorialist understanding of the Eucharist happen when most Baptists abandoned Calvinism in the 19th century? It also must have something to do with Baptists abandoning 'creeds' like their earlier doctrinal confessions as a guide.
Perhaps a key problematic/confusing issue here is that the RCC understanding has a mechanism the Protestant 'system' doesn't. For the RCC the 'application of grace' make sense in their system of accessing and applying merit. Whereas one might ask of the Protestant view, what difference does this mystical working of Christ through the eucharist make? What does it 'do'? The Protestant view seems to lack the mechanism that the RCC see as essential. As such, they might consider the assertion of spiritual presence not being 'real' presence because it's all just semantics.
In John 6:63 Jesus said that the presence in the flesh or bread is the Holy Spirit. So the Wine or blood must be the Light of the Father. We receive both when we receive Jesus in us.
In 68 Peter says the Eucharist is for Eternal life. Or receiving Jesus ( Holy Spirit and Light).
The Rememberance is what the saved did.
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The lwords I have spoken to you-they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.
68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”
I find this disturbing. The emphasis should be on scripture, not the opinions of its interpreters.
Reformed Christians share Roman Catholic and Orthodox tendencies to overemphasize opinions of intermediaries, people who came after the scriptures. A critical analysis of their interpretations, comparing them to scriptures, is instructive. Comparing doctrines to interstitial opinions is an argument from borrowed authority, the wrong authority; whereas the only acceptable authority is the scriptures. Truth is not democratic.
The Reformation was not the Restoration. It was a journey away from Catholic heresies, not to, but towards, scriptural beliefs. Luther retained a great deal of Roman Catholic baggage. Calvin, less so. Reformed theologians who set “historic Baptist” beliefs, or the beliefs of any other period, as a fixed standard, commit a grave error.
Someone has labeled it “chronological snobbery” when Progressives and (other) atheists reject the scriptures due to their age. The label can also be applied to those who give undue authority to “historical” positions.
More to the subject itself, my opinion: The Holy Spirit is already present in believers; no additional presence is necessary. Any conference of grace associates with faith, relationship, and the direction of one’s mind into communion, not mystical works. An act that is strictly symbolic is sufficient for such communion. Pragmatically, I see no evidence that any grace is conferred through communion, other than as a result of directing one’s mind into communing with God and increased reliance on what Christ does for us.
Also pragmatically, it is misleading and dangerous to use the term, “Eucharist,” since it implies grace through works and transubstantiation. Paul’s word, “tradition,” is far better, or the more specific word, “Communion.”
hello! the word "eucharist" is a transliteration of the Greek word eucharistia, used more than a dozen times in the New Testament. I agree the focus should be on Scripture, but that was not the purpose of this particular video. I have given a (brief) biblical case elsewhere, in case that is of interest.
The issue is that well meaning people disagree on interpretations of the same scripture. That’s why we go back to church fathers and their opinions since they are closer to the Apostles. Read Justin Martyr’s First Apology from 155AD, one generation from the Apostles- he speaks of the real presence and describes the Catholic liturgy for worship.