Thomas Cranmer's great treatise called " The Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ" is also a great explanation in a polemical sense of a Reformed perspective on the Lord's Supper. This was presented liturgically especially in the 1552 Book of Common Prayer and dogmatically in Article XXVIII of the Thirty Nine Articles. I suspect that Watson's book is more easily understood than Cranmer's, but they both appear to convey similar views.
@@TruthUnites In connection with Cranmer's works and his view on the eucharist I highly recommend an article written by Daniel Marrs "Real Presence, Spiritual Presence: Assessing Thomas Cranmer's Appropriation of St. Ambrose's Eucharistic Doctrine" which demonstrates that Ambrose though often cited by Roman Catholics, is closer to Cranmer's and the reformed view. The article is available online.
@@aericabison23 majority of western churches do (Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican etc.) It tends to be reformed, baptist's, evangelicals and the like that don't.
I grew up in a purely memorialist tradition. I’ve been comfortably in the reformed camp of soteriology, ecclesiasology, and baptism for a while. This has helped me understand more of what I’m realizing I do believe regarding the Lords Table.
"This has helped me understand more of what I’m realizing I do believe regarding the Lords Table." GO with scripture and the full 2000 years of Christianity. *SCRIPTURE:* 51 And he took bread, and when he had 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.” *SCRIPTURE:* 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” *SCRIPTURE:* 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; *SCRIPTURE:* 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. *SCRIPTURE:* 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. *SCRIPTURE:* 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. *SCRIPTURE:* 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. St Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of St John, the very same St John taught by Jesus Christ and who wrote the words above. A great example of HE (Ignatius) who hears YOU (St John) hears me (JESUS); Lk 10. “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110). St Justin Martyr writes a few years later: “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." Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165). St Ireneaus a few years later, against heretics: “But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator of the world…” Against Heresies, IV:18, 2 (c. A.D. 200). St Clement of Alexandria : “For the blood of the grape-that is, the Word-desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both-of the water and of the Word-is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul.” The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202). Where are all those early Christians teaching a reformed understanding?? How could the Church, the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth, where the manifold wisdom of God is made known, that Christ PROMISED to lead to ALL TRUTH, error and not know it for 1500 years leading to three Catholic who would disagree with each other: 2 priests named Luther and Zwingli and a Catholic lawyer named Calvin? Highly recommend this video is by Dr Brant Pitre. ua-cam.com/video/P45BHDRA7pU/v-deo.htmlsi=KsozERJg9qmJZ5pa
Thank you for this, Gavin! I come from a Lutheran perspective and have thought too lowly of how real you view the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. It's a pleasant surprise to hear you be so clear about this: We receive Christ!
Our fellowship (Protestant, though i never truly understood that label, but now thanks to Gavin i do) partakes & teaches on the Lords Supper every week, i can't imagine worship without it! 🙏 Though I've never heard the term 'Real Presence' before finding Dr Gavins channel, when ever i partake in The Lords Supper, i see His broken Body and spilt Blood and recieve Him and His benefits in it.. Simultaneously, I am also, in that moment, of the deep understanding that His broken Body & Atoning Blood given to all who love Him (all over the world), makes us one in Him, cleansed together, fitted together.. It is always a very intimate and very sacred moment for me.. I am always penitent in that moment, always being conscious of His Presence, very conscious of His Holy Spirit, and conscious of the eyes of Our Heavenly Father being on me, knowing my heart.. There are times when i simply can't partake, considering that my heart is not right in that moment, and that i need to attend to something that disqualifies me at that moment, some division between me and a Brother or Sister, or something else like that.. That time with the Lord in His Presence is never taken lightly by me.. it is a profound and intimate moment for me..🙏
Interesting, I don't get it, as a former pentacostal, I always saw the presence of the Lord present in everything we do in worship. Everyday life. He is ever present, there is nowhere where he is not present. Is He extra present at the breaking bread and wine? I never thought He wasn't present. 🤷🏻♂️ although this video made me want to focus and see if I could learn more into this moment. Something I may not know. Thank you for the video.
I've been a born again Believer for more than 30 years. I'm no scholar, but I do love the Word. The Holy Spirit is always with us, but there is an extra special presence when we gather to together for the Lord's Supper. How it happens is a mystery, but there is a deeper communion when we all meditate on Christ and his sacrifice at the same time. I like the notion that we are in a sense, transported to the throne room of God.
I have never heard this view of communion from any protestant church. I have been to many protestant churches, and none of them ever taught this. It sounds so much like the orthodox and catholic church. what’s so strange is in my protestant walk pastors would tell me, Luther, Zwingli, and early protestants were too much like the Roman Catholic Church since they were priest in the Catholic Church. They did not convert enough. According to these pastors. But it seems like you’re saying people need to get back to the early church.
"But it seems like you’re saying people need to get back to the early church." And in the early Church, for the first 1500++ years, those who led the faithful at Church were Catholic priests, bishops included. Protestant pastors didn't exist.
I can’t express what a blessing it has been to me to come across your videos on the Lord’s Supper. I go to a Protestant non-denominational church and we have never had this teaching but the Lord spoke to one of the elders of my previous church in a housegroup meeting years ago and said He desired us to have Communion because it was a way of having intimacy with Him. I never understood this until I came across you on the Beckett Cook show and started watching your videos.
Great video. Whilst I am Cranmerian in my view of The Lords Supper. I do struggle with some verses. For example Jesus was actually bodily present when he told them that this was his body and blood. And, he said I will not eat if ut again until we eat together in the kingdom. Would Jesus really eat his own body? I think these verses support a more memorial view of the supper but I know there is more scripture to consider.
I am not sure why you would think those verses support a memorial view. The reformed view does not accept transubstantiation. I don't see this as a conundrum.
*JESUS AND THE REFORMED* Jesus: "This is my body...this is my blood." (Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20, 1 Corinthians 11:23-25) Reformed: "No, it isn't." Jesus: "Unless you eat my Body and drink my blood, you have no life in you." (John 6:54) Reformed: "Let us explain what you really meant by that..."
I love how you ended the video with a strong emphasis on the grace Jesus offers in the Supper to all Christians who come to the table in faith… even mustard seed faith.
Thank you for this! I definitely want to read Watson’s book now. I totally got teary eyed at the end. Those last 2 quotes you cited were excellent. Reminded me of a lot of your brother Dane’s book Gentle & Lowly (which I love!)- the idea of how it is precisely when we are sick with sin that we move toward Christ and not away from him. His heart for sinners and sufferers is that of gentle and lowly. P.s. I agree with the others who said that it would be really cool to hear a discussion on the Supper with you and Dr Jordan Cooper.😊
I can't understand how it makes sense in the light of the gospel, after having stated that this is a visual sermon, to stick to the idea that Jesus is not coming to us, but we to him, that it's not incarnational, but purely spiritual. Makes very little sense to me. To be able to tell the laity that He is coming to us, is the gospels foundation. This is the foundational difference of Lutherans and Reformed, and Luther was right to recognize that this is hard to reconcile, and would undermine the Lutheran pastoral preaching of the core of the gospel, Christs precence everywhere, also on earth, indeed the Kingdoms precense with us now. We do indeed rise, but only because He decends with us. There is no preaching in the sacrament if it is not about the incarnation and bodily precense. Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding, but this is hard for me to get around. It forms the core of my understanding of the gospel.
This was really helpful, Gavin! I think I've tended to assume about the depth of meaning in communion, and I think a lot of other people have too. It's possible it's been underrepresented as a doctrine in response to how emphasized the Supper is in the Catholic/Orthodox traditions. I'd be interested in additional videos on it!
This was very good, but a few places where I might "nudge" you to continue the conversation. 1) I think when we speak of "spiritual" presence, we unwittingly inject an alien metaphysics into our explanation by using the lower case "s" instead of a capitol "S." I would argue that one should not pit "spiritual" against "physical," rather it should be "Spiritual" but not "local" (i.e. a mysterious working of the Holy Spirit). Body and blood are quintessentially physical and saying "spiritual body" or "spiritual blood" by which one means "non-physical body and blood" sounds oxymoronic. Our whole persons (body, blood, & soul) are so united to the whole Christ, that participation in his real body and blood are an essential part of our salvation. Calvin sought to teach this with his imagery of us being brought up to heaven to feed upon Christ. 2) I agree that faith is necessary and I am a receptionist and not a consecrationist, but at the same time, we must resist the temptation to make the efficacy overly cerebral. Christ said "do this" not "think about this". The command of Christ is to eat and to drink. I would argue that faith receives the sacrament in an "embodied" manner by one's eating and drinking. It does not become efficacious by the power of our ability to think rightly about the sacrament. Here I think Paul's words about discerning the body are misunderstood. Discernment was not discerning the sacrament qua sacrament, but rather discerning the corporate practice of this meal as a meal of unity and not division. Anyway, peace!
Brant Pitre wrote an absolutely spectacular scholarly book on the last Supper called JESUS AND THE LAST SUPPER. It is not just keeping the body of Christ in Communion with Him and each other with the divine life of Christ. It is also the living bread that is food for the new exodus to the New Jerusalem.
@@kaysandee I realize that Brant Pitre is not infallible. I also realize that every self-proclaim expert or pastor is at least as infallible as Brant Pitre. Brant Pitre doesn't invent historical truth. He researches the bible and Jewish history for it. I would trust him over a self-appointed minister any day. Brant Pitre also understand exactly how Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. How many Calvinists do you know that get that? Dr. Orlund, at this point in his research, is trying to reconcile his tradition with that of the early church. He is admirably taking a stab at understanding how the teachings of the apostles were practiced in the early church. There are a few OT scholars who could help, if he would listen. You can only go so far with Protestant scholars. They simply weren't there. The early fathers were. It can't hurt to listen to them and reconcile it with the REASON for their practices based on Judaism. Why do you think the Christian religion caught on so quickly? The early Christians didn't see it as foreign. Why? That's what the Jewish roots can explain.
“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. So Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”” John 6:47-58, 66-69 ESV Many of his followers left him over this, but he didn’t say “don’t go, I meant it was just a symbol.” Jesus doubled down on his carefully chosen words. Hard to explain the real presence away, without saying Jesus was wrong. The church fathers closest to the source universally believed in the real presence…
1 Corinthians 10:16 was precisely the verse that a college professor pointed to to reject the "merely memorial" view, and it is the one that brought me out of that view as well. You hear a lot of "Communion Meditations" in the kinds of Protestant churches I've been a part of that read from 1 Corinthians 11, but I have never heard someone reference 1 Cor 10 during the time of the Lord's Supper at a worship service.
I love the language of Q.76 in the Heidelberg Catechism. Q. What does it mean to eat the crucified body of Christ and to drink His shed blood? A. First, to accept with a believing heart all the suffering and the death of Christ, and so receive forgiveness of sins and life eternal. Second, to be united more and more to His sacred body through the Holy Spirit, who lives both in Christ and in us. Therefore, although Christ is in heaven and we are on earth, yet we are flesh of His flesh and bone of His bones, and we forever live and are governed by one Spirit, as the members of our body are by one soul. That knocked my socks off the first time I read it. My sense was that it was in danger of going too far in speaking of our union with Christ, but in light of 1 Cor. 2:11-16 the language is completely biblical.
helllooo! I have a question/concern. Is not having a perfect understanding or taking a firm stance on whether the supper is memorial or spiritual, or literal, (etc) drinking judgement on yourself? For example, if I go to communion in my evangelical church (that broadly holds a zwingli view) and i'm not sure exactly where I land theologically speaking on the nature of the presence of Christ, if I go and take the supper anyway before coming to a firm stance, and just take it in faith and mystery, am I drinking condemnation on myself as paul talks about in corinthinas?
hi Sophia! No, that is not eating and drinking judgment on yourself. It is good to keep working on your understanding of it, but the Corinthian problem was much more severe than that. They were getting drunk on the wine, etc. Hope that gives you some peace of mind.
Jesus didn’t say “eat my spiritual presence”, he said “eat my flesh and drink my blood”. Many walked away from this hard teaching, are you one of them?
Somehow according the protestantism - and not just Gavin - the Church universally errored on the Lord's Supper for the first 1500 years and didn't even know it. Never a synod or council to debate the issue!! There were not any protestant "pastors" during those first 1000+ years. Those who led the Christian "congregations" were Catholic priests, bishops included, who led the faithful at Mass, where they believed through their words of consecration, the bread and wine transformed into the resurrected Christ.
I had no clue that so many protestant groups historically held such a high view of communion.Your videos like this on communion help me understand the depth of this beautiful gift from Jesus. Thanks.
While I don't consider myself to be a Methodist, I go to one precisely because of their belief in the spiritual presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. Plus, this is the only Protestant church I encountered that offers the Eucharist every week. I wish the Eucharist was not a monthly event in most Evangelical churches.
@@schmi146 haha yes, a Calvinist is more than somebody who believes in the sovereignty of God. Helpful to point out! Historically, Baptists and Calvinists/Reformed were distinguished.
Gavin this is exactly what I needed to hear as I've long struggled with the somewhat blase, symbolic view Protestants tend to take on the Eucharist. I just ordered the book and would so love to hear more on this subject - do you have a link to your sermon?
IS this the standard Baptist view? I feel like this view is in the London Baptist confession 1689, but I don't see this in many practicing baptististic churches
@@TruthUnites There’s still some available at Reformation Heritage Books, wish there were more godly man’s picture by Thomas Watson readily available, I don’t like the New Reprint edition but that’s just me lol.
Interesting thoughts. It seems like the reformation started out to try and tweak the church slightly but maybe over time became taken over by the gnostics. I feel like Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaus already defeated them but here we see again movements to decoupling the spiritual from the physical and focus only on the spiritual. Irenaus pray for us.
Given that the RCC is schismatic, and Luther’s reforms are born of a spirit of schism that his colleagues like Calvin and Zwingli maintained, it’s not really surprising how chaotic the beliefs and practices of Protestants are.
@@nathanmagnuson2589 How do you figure the Roman Catholic church is schismatic? They have always maintained communion with the throne of King and his majordomo.
Theres a reason is the schism between the RCC and the EO is a schism between Rome and the other Orthodox patriarchates. Even the OO are closer to orthodoxy than the RCC at this point imo.
I was hoping this video would offer an offical doctrine about the Lord's Supper. I am trying to understand the protestant belief about the nature of it. This video started out making sense to me (the high and low view explanation), but the description from this book seemed to be almost exactly whay the Catholic Church teaches about the Eucharist, but without conceding that is what the Catholic Church teaches is correct. I am just under the impression that if you can poetically articulate beliefs that are almost identical to those of the Catholic Church, while still being able to maintain the most minimal degree of difference from it, you should be deemed a great protestant scholar. Does Gavin (or another protestant scholar) have any other videos that explain protestant teachings of The Lord's Supper in more definitive terms?
Sorry to bring this to your attention but when it comes to Baptism and Communion, trying to get a concise Protestant stance is like trying to catch smoke. Each denomination has a stance, and the mainline churches (Lutheran, Anglican, Presbyterian, etc.) are descriptive in their confessions of faith or catechisms. Baptist and Evangelicals on the other hand are almost always memorialist. But, Dr. Ortlund here is an example of a more traditional Reformed Baptist. Because of that,I wouldn't take what he says to represent Baptist beliefs as a whole. Lastly, he is definitely a maverick leading the charge to bring the Reformed Baptist Church back to us roots
While I am not an expert on his view of the Lord's Supper, I am more in line with Nevin's side of the split in the Reformed view of the Lord's Supper. It is a mystery and mystical/ spiritual. I am pretty close to a Lutheran or Orthodox view of real presence but still hanging on to spiritual presence for incarnational or Christological reasons.
Apostle Paul also quotes the institute of slavery, and does not condemn it. Every generation has its cultural contexts and backgrounds. Nowadays, what do you think about a chinese worker that works more than 14h/day and earns a montlhy payment less than 100 dollars? He is a slave also, unfortunatelly. So... far from justifying slavery, my point is to show that all these social problems existed and still exist these days. And that said, it doesn't downplay the importance of what a Christian have written at the time he/she was living in.
If the spiritual feasting is so important, to the point of eclipsing the material/physical aspect of the Eucharist, then what is the purpose of the food itself? The Lord's Supper is a MEAL. Eating is essential both to life and the spiritual reality of the Eucharist, therefore the food itself (bread and wine) is essential. You cannot take (and eat) communion without communion itself. St Paul's warnings in 1 Corinthians 11 only make sense when the gifts (bread and wine being "changed" into the Body and Blood of Christ) are both essential and eaten. All of this dancing around the fearful term of transubstantiation (not a term that we Orthodox particularly love, but a moderately convenient one in this sense) smacks of a subcurrent of gnosticism. The gnostics made themselves evident by their refusal to take communion, according to Fr Thomas Hopko. Christ didn't;t come merely as a spirit. And when he was resurrected, He returned bodily in every sense of that word. he gives us His flesh to eat and His blood to drink because these are life. This is a deep mystery. Much can be said about it, but it cannot be circumscribed. And this is why we can both say, 'This is truly Christ's Body and Blood" and we can say, "I cannot explain this rationally, but only through faithfulness to Christ's command to eat and drink." Oddly enough, We don't need to overthink the Eucharist. Which is why the Orthodox commune infants: it isn;t about what we think or say about it, rather it is centered on our faith and trust in Christ to fulfill what He has commanded and what He has promised. This is less about the head and more about the heart, wherein we find Christ and the Kingdom of God, approaching this kingdom with the faith of a child.
Thank you very much ,i was just thinking about introducing it weekly to my congregation. Hoping that it would help communicate the mystical and spiritual feasting of our Lord and king in a more profound way . Thank you for your message of love to God’s people. God bless you. Amen
Thanks for another great video. I know a lot of discussion about the Lord's Supper deals with the "types of presence" in the supper, because that seems to be what separates the various Christian communities. However, it would be nice to hear an exposition on the idea, and evolution, of the Lord's supper/Eucharist as a sacrifice. Thanks, Dr. Ortlund, for these videos.
The presence in the Eucharist is the Holy Spirit. Jesus tells us in John 6:63 that the flesh is worthless it is the Holy Spirit. In John 6:68 Peter said that it is to give Eternal life (Holy Spirit and Light) and save the unsaved. The last Supper was a Rememberance only as they all were previously saved.
1 Corinthians 2:14-16 ESV The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. [15] The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. [16] "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.
John 6 Lord’s Prayer… panem nostrum quotidianum de nobis hodie Do this in memory of me…. This is why I’m Catholic. Your view should first be Formed…so you can see the error of this “Re”formed view.
17:33 Yes, remember in Scripture when that unworthy guy partook of the Lord's Supper? Oh ya, Judas. Then he was damned. Yes, come eagerly, but if in grave sin, first be cleansed.
What I’m struggling most to understand with respect to this view is how the body of Christ (a physical thing) is present in a spiritual way. Is there a Reformed source that dives deeply into that? The idea of the spiritual presence of a physical thing is sort of breaking my brain.
watching this now. I think Chan is right about the replacement of the LS in a sense. The LS was the main central feature for a good while. Then the Protestants brought back the Word as central also. The Word was also central in biblical and in early Christianity along with the sacraments. Thus, the sacraments and especially the LS lost some of the centrality since it is now shared with the Word. To be clear I see word and sacrament central in Biblical and early Church worship. At some point in the Middle Ages the centrality of the Word diminished and thus the sacraments became the only thing that was really central. The reformers (and the pre-reformers) brought back the Word as central along with the sacrament.
The last supper (Holy Sacrifice of the Mass) was the central part of the Christian faith until 1517 - scripture has always had a prominent role because Christianity is a liturgical faith, and so the liturgy of the Word is incredibly important - but scripture should never have replaced the centrality of the Eucharist, which as Jesus says in John 6 is true food and true drink, and as he says in the last supper narrative, that the offering of the Eucharist is for the forgiveness of sins - what the reformers did was a complete travesty and disaster.
This is the first time I’ve ever heard a Christian say that the communion is more important than God’s word. This is one of the criticisms of the Roman Catholics
I appreciate the thoughtful reflection and presentation of the Reformed position is. The remark that Christ Jesus is locally present in heaven and, amongst the very strictest of Calvinists, that it would be contrary to a true Human Nature for Him to have anything other than a local, confined presence, demonstrates that the separation between the Lutheran and the Reformed is a Christological issue, not merely semantic; that is, how one understands "is" or "presence."
Thank you for this video Pastor Ortlund. I know this is an old video, but this was super helpful for my own thinking as I am currently discerning between Anglicanism and the Pentecostal church of my upbringing.
May I ask why only those two traditions? There are a good number of Charismatic Anglicans, but also EPC presbyterians. Is it determining how sacramental you are convicted that the sacraments are?
Could you consider doing a video on closed communion? I really struggle with being left out of communion at Loved Ones’ churches. To me, Communion is the big moment for “communion of the [earthly/heavenly] saints”, for unity of true Believers.
Churches who take the Supper at face value get great comfort and assurance from it. Moreover, they consider it to be a basic belief because to them it requires no interpretation, only believing, taking, and eating. So when someone comes to church and they refuse to believe something so easy and basic, it's hard not to suspect them of being a "reviler." And according to 1 Cor 5:11, we are not to eat even secular food with christians who do not accept correction, i.e. revilers. Hope that helps explain the perspective.
You need to truly believe that the host is the body of Christ and you must receive Him in a state of grace (no mortal sin), otherwise it is sacrilege to receive the host. (In this state, you are ready to join the saints in heaven) 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. Let no one who has a quarrel with his neighbor join you until he is reconciled by the Lord. In every place and time let there be offered to me a clean sacrifice."
@@jamesrey3221 The Didache states no where in it that The Thanksgiving is the real and physical body and blood of Christ. It has great reverence for the ordinance, and takes about a third or so of this little book in giving instruction for it, but it just doesn't state that. The Didache which is such an early writing, predating most of the church fathers, really showed me how this transubstantiation doctrine evolved over time and became more and more elaborate.
@@joycegreer9391 The RCC Eucharist practice is hyper reverent. We need to be careful what we call sacrilege. They hold is as their most sacred and revered sacrament, as far as I can tell.
"He carried HIS OWN BODY IN HIS HANDS AND GAVE IT TO THEM TO EAT ", ( Augustine). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink and, the new Passover Lamb to be consumed for our salvation!
I know it would require more work on your part, but I would love it if you posted links in the description to past videos you mention over the course of the video I’m currently watching.
It seems to me the Orthodox get this right in teaching that the bread literally becomes His flesh and the wine His blood, to whatever degree that is possible. That is why it is a Sacrament--or rather a "sacred mystery" that does not need a philosophical explanation for the hows and whys, but rather a mystery to be thankful for. This is also a serious mystery and not one to take lightly or flippantly. As St. Paul is rather explicit about this in 1 Corinthians 11:27-30. Taking it in an "unworthy" manner will cause this medicine to be a poison, to the point of even causing physical death (V.30). This teaching denies any idea of the Eucharist being a symbol, for how can a mere symbol make you sick or cause you to physically die? I struggle with this "reformed" view...why does it need reform? When did it become in need of reform? If the Reformers truly think the bread contained the "real" presence, when does that become actualized?
Amazing explanation. Very enlightening. I am a Pentecostal minister (Assemblie of God) from Brazil, and I have learned a lot from all of your videos. Thanks and keep up the great work.
@@josueinhan8436 Com certeza! Tenho aprendido muito com ele, tanto pelo exemplo de cristão, quanto pelo conteúdo que produz. Abraços pra ti, meu irmão!
@@jonathanfraires irmão, confere dps esse livro dele do Thomas Watson. Está à venda por 13 reais na Amazon. Chama-se "A Ceia do Senhor". Foi traduzido pra português. Abração, Deus te abençoe
Sur ce sujet de l’eucharistie, M. Crammer ne comprend pas que son point de vue sort d’une vision trop personnelle de Calvin et de ses perroquets ! Il oublie que les Apôtres ont reçu un enseignement du Christ : après avoir renvoyé la foule Il expliquait tout en détail à Ses disciples ! C’est devenu l’enseignement apostolique justement des apôtres et des Pères de l’Eglise, transmis fidèlement pendant plus de 2000 ans. Ces cogitations fumeuses, qui ont à peine 500 ans, comment leur attribuer un certificat de conformité? Célébrer une cène sans autel, sans prêtre, quand pour l’eucharistie, on respecte le Sacrifice du Temple de Jérusalem: une offrande , déposée sur l’autel de Dieu , puis consommée par les prêtres… M. J. Herschmeier a parfaitement raison, et la vision calviniste, une entourloupe, rien d’autre!
This man clearly knows in his conscious that Catholicism is true, because he is always trying too hard to justify weak/heretical protestant traditions in contrast to Catholicism or he is focusing on things almost as a Catholic, he obviously shows he is aware of the inadequacy of protestantism May the Holy Spirit give him courage and knowledge for conversion.
Wow are you deceived. He clearly shows how Catholicism claims are weak/heretical and how Protestant most clearly reflects the early faith of the first few centuries. May you come to Truth and convert away from your false church with its false authority.
I think if you agree on the presence of it you have to also ask the question: Who has the authority to do this? Who has the authority to "consecrate" the Lord's Supper and give it to others? It's been a question on my mind for a while.
Good question: (Only thru Apostolic succession) Only a priest ordained thru the sacrament of the Holy Orders can consecrate the host of the communion and absolve a sin in the sacrament of confession. Not even an angel, nor archangel, nor any other created power, can consecrate the host and absolve our sin - “what you bind on earth is bound in heaven” St. John Chrysostom: "On the Priesthood" "The Paraclete Himself, instituted this vocation, and persuaded men while still abiding in the flesh to represent the ministry of angels."
All believers are priests according to the New Testament. Your view is more of developed tradition than obeying the Lord by faith. Acts 2:42-43 seems to suggest the participation of all believers, even the unfortunate passage in 1 Corinthians 11. If the "yoke" of "ordained class of priests", in my view was the norm in the New Testament Church, it would have been difficult to partake of the Lord's supper under heavy persecution the Church went through. The leadership in the Church evolved or developed slowly, abandoning the apostolic New Testament type of a group of elders leading the Church ~ who were normally chosen from the congregation with their own families and living among their own community to a monarchical hierarchy of a single Bishop in a post apostolic era.
Good question. I'm not Gavin, but I would say at the very least using the Lord's words of institution and the elements of bread and wine. One could add a validly ordained celebrant, the epiclesis (calling upon the Holy Spirit),...the list could get quite long.
@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes …I don’t think they have enough evidence to make this claim. Justin Martyr in 155AD outlined the Mass, including the Eucharist. The words of institution were not mentioned, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t exist. Much of the documents from that time period did not survive…
@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes Thanks for that interesting point! Sometimes a longstanding practice can be assumed to be at the core of a liturgical act when in fact it is not. I'm curious, Prof. Nemes, do you know if there was a discernable oral tradition that predates our earliest Eucharistic liturgies? There must have been something spoken, right? Do we know the general shape of that?
@@mj6493 thanks for your response. Would believing the doctrine of “real presence” in the Lord’s Supper be necessary? In other words, is there an objective reality which unfolds no matter the subjective belief of the one who says these words (the words of the Lord’s consecration)?
@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes I'm not sure if you want to call it a formula, but Paul clearly says, "For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you,..." in his letter to the Corinthians in relation to the verba. And when exactly would he have received this from the Lord? Does he mean he received it from Peter in Damascus? I'll leave it to the scholars.
Good video, however I think a balanced and accurate historical theology of the Protestant Reformation reveals they hold the primacy of the Word preached, not the primacy of the sacraments. That does not mean a low view or undervaluing the sacraments. Just like how Paul placed baptism under the preached word in his priority as an apostle 1 Cor. 1:17. The sacraments are appended to the word for the purpose of confirming or sealing it, they do not exist independently of the word but it is the word that gives life to the sacraments. The same grace received through the sacraments is the same grace received in the preached word.
I think this is an inaccurate statement. The early reformers all had sacramental theology. Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopals, Methodists, Presbyterians all believe in some form of real presence. The more recent in history you go, the more sacraments are dropped for “Bible only” denominations.
@@billmartin3561 bill, first, Lutherans and Anglicans should be distinguished from the historic reformed churches and reformed confessions (Methodists as well). The “Reformed” are distinguished from the Anglicans, Lutherans, Anabaptists, etc. in multiple ways for multiple reasons. Many have seemed to lose that distinguishing classification today. The primacy of the preached word was central to the growth and doctrine of the Reformation. Also, as a Reformed Presbyterian who subscribes to the original Westminster Standards, I do not deny a high view of the Lord’s Supper. It is not a bare memorial, the Reformed repudiate that. Just because Reformers and Reformed confessions held the primacy of the preached word does not mean they diminished the sacraments. It’s not inaccurate to say the Reformed churches held the primacy of the preached word while maintaining a high view of the sacraments, it’s what the reformers and reformed confessions attested to. I’m not arguing on behalf of Lutherans or Anglicans or Baptists or Methodists, I’m simply reiterating what the Reformed branch of the Reformation heralded. It’s what the ministers were primarily commissioned to do in the first place 2 Tim 4:2
Jacob, I concur with your well-written assessment: it is quite clear that Calvin believed in the primacy of the Word preached. I think Dr. Ortlund may be misreading Watson, though I haven't read a ton of Watson myself. Bill, when we are discussing anything "Reformed", we are not discussing "Bible only". The latter is the result of a degeneration of primarily baptist theology and has a different origin and history.
@@jacobcarne8316 I appreciate your qualification there, not claiming to speak for all Protestants. As a Lutheran, and influenced by Anglicanism greatly (liturgically and otherwise), I can with some authority represent the "other side" of the Reformation. It is true that the Reformers as such emphasized the primacy of the Word in an age that held primacy to the sacraments (and the sacrifice of the mass, more specifically)... yet, I see this not as an attempt to "put the sacraments in their place", but to elevate the [preached] Word to the same level that the sacraments enjoyed in the Middle Ages (thus restoring, rather than introducing the ancient balance between the synactic Liturgy of the Word, and the Eucharistic Liturgy). Their relationship is one of reciprocity, not subordination. The sacraments are "visible words" (to quote St Augustine) but the Word -- preached -- is rightly understood as having sacramental effect (vocal sounds carrying the grace of the Holy Spirit to the hearers); hence why we Lutherans have always classified Holy Absolution within Private Confession, as a "third sacrament" despite no obvious _visible_ sign.
I doubt that is true sir, I have been to a Protestant service and they literally downplay the body and blood of Christ by serving the people grape juice/ black berry juice instead of wine
But way a go eventhough I personally think you are playing pseudohistory, you are calling Protestants to come back to the root all church fathers believe, that His flesh is food indeed and His blood is drink indeed (John 5:55)
I agree 100%. Paraphrasing here but, Dr. Ortlund even mentioned how this is the traditional, reformed Baptists view. It's certainly a minority view among Baptists
What can I say but admire this deep sermon! Sir. Excellent explanation 👌 of the traditional protestant view on the "Bread" & "Wine". This is the reason why I converted to protestantism: my impurity, though I may struggle against it, coupled with repentance is the exact requisite of the admission to the table of The Lord.
If your view of any type of "real presence" doesn't logically lead to full on worship and adoration of the Eucharist (post-consecration), then your view ain't real enough. And I'm sorry, there is no middle ground between the Eucharist is Christ and the Eucharist isn't Christ. You can have all kinds of rhetoric and imagination you like but at the end of the day, if the bread and wine remain the same thing they were before, nothing supernatural has occurred and nothing supernatural is bestowed.
Reformed here. It does lead to adoration but the proper manner is according to the sacrament. We adore Christ as he gives himself to us in the elements, by eating and drinking him. This is why he offers himself to us in the form of food and drink. Christ is worshipped in the eating and drinking of his body and blood, rather than by placing in a box to be seen. There is no middle ground between the whole sacrament which includes the act of eating and drinking, or merely Christ offering himself in the elements of food but we choose not to obey the command to eat his flesh where he has offered himself to us -- placing him in a kind of cage to be gawked at. Take the sacrament seriously with real devotion, means to eat and drink.
@@TheologiaEvangelicahave you ever thought that the Ark of the Covenant contained the manna God gave the Israelites and that Jesus is the fulfillment of that? Christ is not displayed in a cage like a zoo animal. His body and blood is preserved in the Tabernacle as the manna was preserved in the Ark of the Covenant. Read John 6 and everything will become clear: “31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” 32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” 34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.” 35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.”
Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.". Things seemed to be going pretty well. That is until Jesus said “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.” This was too much for many of his disciples and “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” Jesus turns to the 12 and asks, “Will ye also go away? Vs 61, Jesus did not back down, for He said, "Does this offend you?" it offends protestants💖
A totally unbiblical and ahistorical view. I'd love to have a conversation with Dr Ortlund on this or anyone. I know he's busy but I need clarifications.
Thank you so much for doing this video, Dr. Gavin. I've been praying for clarity on this issue for a long time and I'm really grateful for you taking the time to explain your position on it, as well as this wonderful book. You mentioned that there are a ton of quotes from the church fathers that he interprets. Does that also include Ignatius's quote? I would like to see more in depth videos on this that specifically deals with the early church fathers and their interpretation of the Eucharist. It just doesn't seem like the early church only believed in a spiritual presence, but rather a mystical, physical one as well, even if they didn't believe in transubstantiation. That's why Lutherans will hold to both a physical and spiritual view. Could you please address whether or not this was a clear teaching, and whether or not the spiritual presence belief originated primarily with Calvin, (though you pointed out that the Waldensians actually held to this view as well.) Also, are you a Calvinist who believes that God predestined certain people to go to hell, or do you just value other aspects of Calvin's writings? I hope you and your family have a blessed Thanksgiving, Dr. Ortlund! I am personally thankful to God and you for this channel!
Keep studying as the Reformed and Lutherans debated this topic with Scripture, the Creed and extensive patristic studies. It really is the key issue in Lutheran/Reformed. Thomas Cranmer, Peter Verginili, Calvin, Chemnitz, etc
As a greek speaking and reading the original language text of the New Testament i would be a satanic liar if i said there is no real Holy Eucharist as the body and blood of Lord Jesus Christ.
Would it follow (from Calvin's logic 14:40) that the spiritual benefit is received by the believer who comes in faith regardless of how the bread and cup are perceived (i.e. Tran substantial or memorialist)?
I think generally the Reformed tradition _would_ place the Sacraments "below" the Word in general, and Watson is saying _in these particular ways_ the Supper is superior, but generally not. Calvin holds (in one of his tracts on the topic) that the Sacrament only has meaning and validity _because of_ the Word, therefore is necessarily inferior.
@@matthewlamaster342 But while the sacraments "derive" their meaning and power from the Word (both written, in terms of institution and incarnate by way of command)... the Word can also rightly be called "sacramental" (there is grace/power in the Word), thus their relation is less derivative and more reciprocal. This is why I don't see them as competitive, at least not in regards to the "altar vs pulpit" tension. There is no tension, they are both central, the Liturgy of the Word (synaxis), and the Liturgy of the Eucharist (meal) -- both informing each other. The Reformers merely brought _equal weight_ to the sermon (lacking in the Middle Ages) while maintaining the Medieval importance of the supper.
@@vngelicath1580 Yes, about the alter vs. pulpit tension. I've noticed that Catholic like to use the fact they have an alter for their worship, rather than a mere pulpit, but they use it as a bully pulpit.
Haha! I love how Ortlund loves to use the term, "lower case 'c' catholic" as if there is really such a thing. Whether you use lower case 'c' catholic or upper case 'C' Catholic there is absolutely no difference whatsoever. The word 'Catholic' indicates orthodoxy in doctrine. If you teach the heresies of Protestantism then you are not Catholic in the slightest bit. Lower case 'c' catholic does not authorize the teaching of heresies. Keep talking Gavin, you are undermining 500 years of anti-Catholicism. You are single-handedly bringing souls closer to the Catholic Church. Keep closing the gap. You have recognized that as more people read the Scriptures divorced from the doctrines of denominationalism then they are compelled to enter into the Catholic Church. To be steeped in Church history is to seize being Protestant. You are right to recognize this and you are doing all that you can to make Protestantism appear as Catholic as possible in the hope of keeping more people from crossing the Tiber. It matters not how much you mimic the Catholic Sacraments Gavin, you can NEVER grant authenticity to the Sacraments. Phony-baloney sacraments are not Sacraments at all. The more Biblically and historically accurate that you get, then the more Catholic that you get. But the Truth is that there can be no Salvation outside of the Catholic Church, and there can be no Salvation without the authentic Sacraments of the Catholic Church - no matter how much you try to clone the Catholic Church. He talks about sinners needing to come to "communion" - WOW! Satan is surely loving that one Gavin. There is no example of that doctrine anywhere in Scripture. The Bible says to examine your conscience before partaking in Communion, and not to receive unworthily. Sacrilege. Sacrilege. Sacrilege. The profaning of that which is Holy. But of course, we know that Protestant bread is just as unholy as Protestantism is, therefore there can NEVER be any sacrilege in Protestantism. But the average Joe does not understand this. All he knows is that the Catholic Church, in keeping with the Sacred Scriptures will not allow sinners and outsiders to share in the Supper of the Lamb, and so Orlund has seen an opportunity to snatch up the ignorant to keep them from entering into Communion with God in the Catholic Church. He is selling counterfeit goods. Buyer beware! Satan and Ortlund have a common goal, and that is to keep souls from receiving the Sacraments of Salvation. Oh my, but God works in mysterious ways, and I can see more people fully uniting with the Catholic Church because of Ortlund's efforts. Phony sacraments won't save you. Come home to the Catholic Church and receive the authentic Sacraments that Our Lord gave to us.
@@purgatorean Sorry, I left out part of the Greek. Ignatius first used it. The word comes from ancient Greek καθολικός (pl. καθολικοί), derived from καθ' ὅλου (kath'olou, "generally") from κατά (kata, "down") and ὅλος (holos, "whole"), meaning "concerning the whole, universal, general"
@@Dee-nonamnamrson8718 I certainly agree with your take on the Greek, So in effect, Acts 9:31 can be read as " the Catholic Church in Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace........" A more accurate translation would be "according to the whole". To be Catholic means to believe and obey what the Church teaches. Early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes: “As regards ‘Catholic,’ its original meaning was ‘universal’ or ‘general.’ . . . in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon). . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church” (Early Christian Doctrines, 190-1). Ignatius of Antioch “Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]). The Martyrdom of Polycarp “And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. For every word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will be fulfilled” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 16:2 [A.D. 155]). The Muratorian Canon “Besides these [letters of Paul] there is one to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy, in affection and love, but nevertheless regarded as holy in the Catholic Church, in the ordering of churchly discipline. There is also one [letter] to the Laodiceans and another to the Alexandrians, forged under the name of Paul, in regard to the heresy of Marcion, and there are several others which cannot be received by the Church, for it is not suitable that gall be mixed with honey. The epistle of Jude, indeed, and the two ascribed to John are received by the Catholic Church (Muratorian fragment [A.D. 177]). Tertullian “Where was [the heretic] Marcion, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago-in the reign of Antonius for the most part-and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherius, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 30 [A.D. 200]). Cyprian of Carthage “You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishops; and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priest of God, believing that they are secretly in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and catholic, is not split or divided, but is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere to one another” (Letters 66[67]:8 [A.D. 253]).
This view is so close to the Catholic view. But shouldn't such a high view requires that the ministers of the Sacrament of Christ's Body be ordained to this ministry in a valid manner? Wouldn't that reverence be proper to the Sacrament of Christ's Body?
In my experience, Orthodox worship places far more emphasis on the sacrament/mystery of the Eucharist than modern Protestant worship -- in Orthodoxy, the Eucharist is the climax of the liturgy, whereas it is just another thing that happens to be lumped into Protestant Sunday church. That has been my experience; your mileage may vary.
I like the message of encouragement to the table, but functionally speaking, we don’t want the warnings of approaching the table unworthily to be nullified. The warnings were for the Church after all, not for unbelievers.. “this is why some of YOU are sick and dying.” If I’m in the pew, and my mind kinda wondered around during the sermon or I wasn’t as engaged in worship as I should be, I’m probably gonna abstain from the Lords table that day.
Thomas Cranmer's great treatise called " The Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ" is also a great explanation in a polemical sense of a Reformed perspective on the Lord's Supper. This was presented liturgically especially in the 1552 Book of Common Prayer and dogmatically in Article XXVIII of the Thirty Nine Articles. I suspect that Watson's book is more easily understood than Cranmer's, but they both appear to convey similar views.
great suggestion, here is a link for anyone interested: www.amazon.com/Defence-Catholic-Doctrine-Sacrament-Savior/dp/1592447775
from my understanding, Cranmer goes almost but not quite full Zwinglian in that work, the book of common prayer and the article dont go nearly as far
This came by the thrust of Peter Martyr Vermigilli fyi.
@@internetenjoyer1044 define what you mean by Zwinglian, since I would venture to say his view is the most misinterpreted by polemicists.
@@TruthUnites In connection with Cranmer's works and his view on the eucharist I highly recommend an article written by Daniel Marrs "Real Presence, Spiritual Presence: Assessing Thomas Cranmer's Appropriation of St. Ambrose's Eucharistic Doctrine" which demonstrates that Ambrose though often cited by Roman Catholics, is closer to Cranmer's and the reformed view. The article is available online.
This inspired me to ask my pastors to discuss the possibility of weekly communion at our church! I'm excited, please pray that we can do it! ❤️🕯️
How did it go?
Nothing maddens me more than to realise western churches don’t have weekly communion.
@@aericabison23 majority of western churches do (Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican etc.) It tends to be reformed, baptist's, evangelicals and the like that don't.
@@aericabison23really? That's not good. How bout, Who is CHRIST? What has HE Done?
@@abcdefksohfosuh9024my nearest PCA church does weekly communion
85 pages in an hour? Of a Puritan? You sir are unaware of the intellectual category you occupy.
I grew up in a purely memorialist tradition. I’ve been comfortably in the reformed camp of soteriology, ecclesiasology, and baptism for a while. This has helped me understand more of what I’m realizing I do believe regarding the Lords Table.
"This has helped me understand more of what I’m realizing I do believe regarding the Lords Table."
GO with scripture and the full 2000 years of Christianity.
*SCRIPTURE:* 51 And he took bread, and when he had 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.”
*SCRIPTURE:* 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
*SCRIPTURE:* 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
*SCRIPTURE:* 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
*SCRIPTURE:* 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
*SCRIPTURE:* 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
*SCRIPTURE:* 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
St Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of St John, the very same St John taught by Jesus Christ and who wrote the words above. A great example of HE (Ignatius) who hears YOU (St John) hears me (JESUS); Lk 10.
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).
St Justin Martyr writes a few years later:
“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." Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).
St Ireneaus a few years later, against heretics:
“But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator of the world…” Against Heresies, IV:18, 2 (c. A.D. 200).
St Clement of Alexandria :
“For the blood of the grape-that is, the Word-desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both-of the water and of the Word-is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul.” The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202).
Where are all those early Christians teaching a reformed understanding??
How could the Church, the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth, where the manifold wisdom of God is made known, that Christ PROMISED to lead to ALL TRUTH, error and not know it for 1500 years leading to three Catholic who would disagree with each other: 2 priests named Luther and Zwingli and a Catholic lawyer named Calvin?
Highly recommend this video is by Dr Brant Pitre. ua-cam.com/video/P45BHDRA7pU/v-deo.htmlsi=KsozERJg9qmJZ5pa
Thank you for this, Gavin! I come from a Lutheran perspective and have thought too lowly of how real you view the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. It's a pleasant surprise to hear you be so clear about this: We receive Christ!
Our fellowship (Protestant, though i never truly understood that label, but now thanks to Gavin i do) partakes & teaches on the Lords Supper every week, i can't imagine worship without it! 🙏
Though I've never heard the term 'Real Presence' before finding Dr Gavins channel, when ever i partake in The Lords Supper, i see His broken Body and spilt Blood and recieve Him and His benefits in it..
Simultaneously, I am also, in that moment, of the deep understanding that His broken Body & Atoning Blood given to all who love Him (all over the world), makes us one in Him, cleansed together, fitted together..
It is always a very intimate and very sacred moment for me..
I am always penitent in that moment, always being conscious of His Presence, very conscious of His Holy Spirit, and conscious of the eyes of Our Heavenly Father being on me, knowing my heart..
There are times when i simply can't partake, considering that my heart is not right in that moment, and that i need to attend to something that disqualifies me at that moment, some division between me and a Brother or Sister, or something else like that..
That time with the Lord in His Presence is never taken lightly by me.. it is a profound and intimate moment for me..🙏
Interesting, I don't get it, as a former pentacostal, I always saw the presence of the Lord present in everything we do in worship. Everyday life. He is ever present, there is nowhere where he is not present. Is He extra present at the breaking bread and wine? I never thought He wasn't present. 🤷🏻♂️ although this video made me want to focus and see if I could learn more into this moment. Something I may not know. Thank you for the video.
I've been a born again Believer for more than 30 years. I'm no scholar, but I do love the Word. The Holy Spirit is always with us, but there is an extra special presence when we gather to together for the Lord's Supper. How it happens is a mystery, but there is a deeper communion when we all meditate on Christ and his sacrifice at the same time. I like the notion that we are in a sense, transported to the throne room of God.
I'd love a discussion on this topic with Dr. Jordan Cooper.
@ H E
Yes please, Dr. Gavin! This would be incredibly helpful!
Yes! I concur!
It might be interesting to invite someone like Brett Salkeld too and have a sort of panel
I have never heard this view of communion from any protestant church. I have been to many protestant churches, and none of them ever taught this. It sounds so much like the orthodox and catholic church. what’s so strange is in my protestant walk pastors would tell me, Luther, Zwingli, and early protestants were too much like the Roman Catholic Church since they were priest in the Catholic Church. They did not convert enough. According to these pastors. But it seems like you’re saying people need to get back to the early church.
When it comes to deep reverence and deeper meaning for Holy Communion, we do need to look back and find our first love for it.
"But it seems like you’re saying people need to get back to the early church."
And in the early Church, for the first 1500++ years, those who led the faithful at Church were Catholic priests, bishops included. Protestant pastors didn't exist.
@@TruthHasSpoken this is true
I can’t express what a blessing it has been to me to come across your videos on the Lord’s Supper. I go to a Protestant non-denominational church and we have never had this teaching but the Lord spoke to one of the elders of my previous church in a housegroup meeting years ago and said He desired us to have Communion because it was a way of having intimacy with Him. I never understood this until I came across you on the Beckett Cook show and started watching your videos.
Great video. Whilst I am Cranmerian in my view of The Lords Supper. I do struggle with some verses. For example Jesus was actually bodily present when he told them that this was his body and blood. And, he said I will not eat if ut again until we eat together in the kingdom. Would Jesus really eat his own body? I think these verses support a more memorial view of the supper but I know there is more scripture to consider.
I am not sure why you would think those verses support a memorial view. The reformed view does not accept transubstantiation. I don't see this as a conundrum.
*JESUS AND THE REFORMED*
Jesus: "This is my body...this is my blood." (Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20, 1 Corinthians 11:23-25)
Reformed: "No, it isn't."
Jesus: "Unless you eat my Body and drink my blood, you have no life in you." (John 6:54)
Reformed: "Let us explain what you really meant by that..."
I love how you ended the video with a strong emphasis on the grace Jesus offers in the Supper to all Christians who come to the table in faith… even mustard seed faith.
Thank you for this! I definitely want to read Watson’s book now. I totally got teary eyed at the end. Those last 2 quotes you cited were excellent. Reminded me of a lot of
your brother Dane’s book Gentle & Lowly (which I love!)- the idea of how it is precisely when we are sick with sin that we move toward Christ and not away from him. His heart for sinners and sufferers is that of gentle and lowly.
P.s. I agree with the others who said that it would be really cool to hear a discussion on the Supper with you and Dr Jordan Cooper.😊
great episode
oh my... I just cried when you said "drink the wine, ma`m. It is for sinners. Christ's mercy always make my heart melts.
I can't understand how it makes sense in the light of the gospel, after having stated that this is a visual sermon, to stick to the idea that Jesus is not coming to us, but we to him, that it's not incarnational, but purely spiritual. Makes very little sense to me. To be able to tell the laity that He is coming to us, is the gospels foundation. This is the foundational difference of Lutherans and Reformed, and Luther was right to recognize that this is hard to reconcile, and would undermine the Lutheran pastoral preaching of the core of the gospel, Christs precence everywhere, also on earth, indeed the Kingdoms precense with us now. We do indeed rise, but only because He decends with us. There is no preaching in the sacrament if it is not about the incarnation and bodily precense.
Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding, but this is hard for me to get around. It forms the core of my understanding of the gospel.
The first "view" of the sacrament lasted 1500 years and is still given today by the Ancient Antiochene Church of God.
This was really helpful, Gavin! I think I've tended to assume about the depth of meaning in communion, and I think a lot of other people have too. It's possible it's been underrepresented as a doctrine in response to how emphasized the Supper is in the Catholic/Orthodox traditions. I'd be interested in additional videos on it!
This was very good, but a few places where I might "nudge" you to continue the conversation. 1) I think when we speak of "spiritual" presence, we unwittingly inject an alien metaphysics into our explanation by using the lower case "s" instead of a capitol "S." I would argue that one should not pit "spiritual" against "physical," rather it should be "Spiritual" but not "local" (i.e. a mysterious working of the Holy Spirit). Body and blood are quintessentially physical and saying "spiritual body" or "spiritual blood" by which one means "non-physical body and blood" sounds oxymoronic. Our whole persons (body, blood, & soul) are so united to the whole Christ, that participation in his real body and blood are an essential part of our salvation. Calvin sought to teach this with his imagery of us being brought up to heaven to feed upon Christ. 2) I agree that faith is necessary and I am a receptionist and not a consecrationist, but at the same time, we must resist the temptation to make the efficacy overly cerebral. Christ said "do this" not "think about this". The command of Christ is to eat and to drink. I would argue that faith receives the sacrament in an "embodied" manner by one's eating and drinking. It does not become efficacious by the power of our ability to think rightly about the sacrament. Here I think Paul's words about discerning the body are misunderstood. Discernment was not discerning the sacrament qua sacrament, but rather discerning the corporate practice of this meal as a meal of unity and not division. Anyway, peace!
How can the sacrament be just as important as the word of God
Brant Pitre wrote an absolutely spectacular scholarly book on the last Supper called JESUS AND THE LAST SUPPER. It is not just keeping the body of Christ in Communion with Him and each other with the divine life of Christ. It is also the living bread that is food for the new exodus to the New Jerusalem.
In the middle of it right now. Outstanding.
Brant Pitre’s “Jesus and the Last supper” is a wonderful, thorough scholarly work! 👍👍👍👍
As long as you realize Brant Pitre is not infallible. Scholars can be truly convincing yet still be wrong.
@@kaysandee I realize that Brant Pitre is not infallible. I also realize that every self-proclaim expert or pastor is at least as infallible as Brant Pitre.
Brant Pitre doesn't invent historical truth. He researches the bible and Jewish history for it. I would trust him over a self-appointed minister any day.
Brant Pitre also understand exactly how Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. How many Calvinists do you know that get that?
Dr. Orlund, at this point in his research, is trying to reconcile his tradition with that of the early church. He is admirably taking a stab at understanding how the teachings of the apostles were practiced in the early church. There are a few OT scholars who could help, if he would listen. You can only go so far with Protestant scholars. They simply weren't there. The early fathers were. It can't hurt to listen to them and reconcile it with the REASON for their practices based on Judaism. Why do you think the Christian religion caught on so quickly? The early Christians didn't see it as foreign. Why? That's what the Jewish roots can explain.
@@bazzy8376 I've read, met and studied Brant's work. Really nice guy, thorough and well studied and spoken. I still stand by my comment. Not a debate.
“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. So Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.””
John 6:47-58, 66-69 ESV
Many of his followers left him over this, but he didn’t say “don’t go, I meant it was just a symbol.” Jesus doubled down on his carefully chosen words. Hard to explain the real presence away, without saying Jesus was wrong. The church fathers closest to the source universally believed in the real presence…
1 Corinthians 10:16 was precisely the verse that a college professor pointed to to reject the "merely memorial" view, and it is the one that brought me out of that view as well.
You hear a lot of "Communion Meditations" in the kinds of Protestant churches I've been a part of that read from 1 Corinthians 11, but I have never heard someone reference 1 Cor 10 during the time of the Lord's Supper at a worship service.
Well, then what was his explanation of the last supper verses in Luke's Gospel ?
I love the language of Q.76 in the Heidelberg Catechism.
Q. What does it mean to eat the crucified body of Christ and to drink His shed blood?
A. First, to accept with a believing heart all the suffering and the death of Christ, and so receive forgiveness of sins and life eternal. Second, to be united more and more to His sacred body through the Holy Spirit, who lives both in Christ and in us. Therefore, although Christ is in heaven and we are on earth, yet we are flesh of His flesh and bone of His bones, and we forever live and are governed by one Spirit, as the members of our body are by one soul.
That knocked my socks off the first time I read it. My sense was that it was in danger of going too far in speaking of our union with Christ, but in light of 1 Cor. 2:11-16 the language is completely biblical.
helllooo! I have a question/concern. Is not having a perfect understanding or taking a firm stance on whether the supper is memorial or spiritual, or literal, (etc) drinking judgement on yourself? For example, if I go to communion in my evangelical church (that broadly holds a zwingli view) and i'm not sure exactly where I land theologically speaking on the nature of the presence of Christ, if I go and take the supper anyway before coming to a firm stance, and just take it in faith and mystery, am I drinking condemnation on myself as paul talks about in corinthinas?
hi Sophia! No, that is not eating and drinking judgment on yourself. It is good to keep working on your understanding of it, but the Corinthian problem was much more severe than that. They were getting drunk on the wine, etc. Hope that gives you some peace of mind.
Can you compare it side by side with Scott Hahn's book?
Jesus didn’t say “eat my spiritual presence”, he said “eat my flesh and drink my blood”. Many walked away from this hard teaching, are you one of them?
Somehow according the protestantism - and not just Gavin - the Church universally errored on the Lord's Supper for the first 1500 years and didn't even know it. Never a synod or council to debate the issue!! There were not any protestant "pastors" during those first 1000+ years. Those who led the Christian "congregations" were Catholic priests, bishops included, who led the faithful at Mass, where they believed through their words of consecration, the bread and wine transformed into the resurrected Christ.
I had no clue that so many protestant groups historically held such a high view of communion.Your videos like this on communion help me understand the depth of this beautiful gift from Jesus. Thanks.
Wonderful video! Thank you 🙏🏽
While I don't consider myself to be a Methodist, I go to one precisely because of their belief in the spiritual presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. Plus, this is the only Protestant church I encountered that offers the Eucharist every week. I wish the Eucharist was not a monthly event in most Evangelical churches.
@ Michael Jennings, In the Catholic church we celebrate the Eucharist every day. We have daily Mass and Mass on Sunday.
Many Protestant churches, celebrate the Eucharist every Sunday. It seems more common among non-denominational churches.
Dr. Ortlund, are you a Calvinist?
For this sacrament...
@@schmi146 Please elaborate on your point.
Calvin believed in baptizing infants. So that's 50% similarity with regards to the sacraments.
@@schmi146 haha yes, a Calvinist is more than somebody who believes in the sovereignty of God. Helpful to point out! Historically, Baptists and Calvinists/Reformed were distinguished.
@@schmi146 Fair point. But I wanted to know if Dr. Ortlund is a Calvinist. I was talking about soteriology.
Gavin this is exactly what I needed to hear as I've long struggled with the somewhat blase, symbolic view Protestants tend to take on the Eucharist. I just ordered the book and would so love to hear more on this subject - do you have a link to your sermon?
" For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink "
IS this the standard Baptist view? I feel like this view is in the London Baptist confession 1689, but I don't see this in many practicing baptististic churches
So you’re the reason why this book isn’t as accessible as it was on Amazon a few months ago ? 🤣😛
Haha, I do my part!
@@TruthUnites There’s still some available at Reformation Heritage Books, wish there were more godly man’s picture by Thomas Watson readily available, I don’t like the New Reprint edition but that’s just me lol.
Good work
If you take it in an unworthy manner, you can sick or die. I think that applies to unbelievers too.
Interesting thoughts. It seems like the reformation started out to try and tweak the church slightly but maybe over time became taken over by the gnostics. I feel like Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaus already defeated them but here we see again movements to decoupling the spiritual from the physical and focus only on the spiritual. Irenaus pray for us.
Given that the RCC is schismatic, and Luther’s reforms are born of a spirit of schism that his colleagues like Calvin and Zwingli maintained, it’s not really surprising how chaotic the beliefs and practices of Protestants are.
@@nathanmagnuson2589 How do you figure the Roman Catholic church is schismatic? They have always maintained communion with the throne of King and his majordomo.
Theres a reason is the schism between the RCC and the EO is a schism between Rome and the other Orthodox patriarchates. Even the OO are closer to orthodoxy than the RCC at this point imo.
“Take the cup, ma’am. It is FOR sinners.”
I was hoping this video would offer an offical doctrine about the Lord's Supper. I am trying to understand the protestant belief about the nature of it. This video started out making sense to me (the high and low view explanation), but the description from this book seemed to be almost exactly whay the Catholic Church teaches about the Eucharist, but without conceding that is what the Catholic Church teaches is correct. I am just under the impression that if you can poetically articulate beliefs that are almost identical to those of the Catholic Church, while still being able to maintain the most minimal degree of difference from it, you should be deemed a great protestant scholar.
Does Gavin (or another protestant scholar) have any other videos that explain protestant teachings of The Lord's Supper in more definitive terms?
Sorry to bring this to your attention but when it comes to Baptism and Communion, trying to get a concise Protestant stance is like trying to catch smoke. Each denomination has a stance, and the mainline churches (Lutheran, Anglican, Presbyterian, etc.) are descriptive in their confessions of faith or catechisms.
Baptist and Evangelicals on the other hand are almost always memorialist. But, Dr. Ortlund here is an example of a more traditional Reformed Baptist. Because of that,I wouldn't take what he says to represent Baptist beliefs as a whole. Lastly, he is definitely a maverick leading the charge to bring the Reformed Baptist Church back to us roots
@@Godfrey118 Thank you for taking the time to explain this perspective. The catching smoke analogy was also helpful.
While I am not an expert on his view of the Lord's Supper, I am more in line with Nevin's side of the split in the Reformed view of the Lord's Supper. It is a mystery and mystical/ spiritual. I am pretty close to a Lutheran or Orthodox view of real presence but still hanging on to spiritual presence for incarnational or Christological reasons.
I'd really like to hear your take on understanding the puritans in their historical context...i.e being (many of them) slave owners.
Apostle Paul also quotes the institute of slavery, and does not condemn it. Every generation has its cultural contexts and backgrounds. Nowadays, what do you think about a chinese worker that works more than 14h/day and earns a montlhy payment less than 100 dollars? He is a slave also, unfortunatelly. So... far from justifying slavery, my point is to show that all these social problems existed and still exist these days. And that said, it doesn't downplay the importance of what a Christian have written at the time he/she was living in.
I so appreciated this. I have been reading this same book recently. Thanks for posting!
If the spiritual feasting is so important, to the point of eclipsing the material/physical aspect of the Eucharist, then what is the purpose of the food itself? The Lord's Supper is a MEAL. Eating is essential both to life and the spiritual reality of the Eucharist, therefore the food itself (bread and wine) is essential. You cannot take (and eat) communion without communion itself. St Paul's warnings in 1 Corinthians 11 only make sense when the gifts (bread and wine being "changed" into the Body and Blood of Christ) are both essential and eaten. All of this dancing around the fearful term of transubstantiation (not a term that we Orthodox particularly love, but a moderately convenient one in this sense) smacks of a subcurrent of gnosticism. The gnostics made themselves evident by their refusal to take communion, according to Fr Thomas Hopko. Christ didn't;t come merely as a spirit. And when he was resurrected, He returned bodily in every sense of that word. he gives us His flesh to eat and His blood to drink because these are life. This is a deep mystery. Much can be said about it, but it cannot be circumscribed. And this is why we can both say, 'This is truly Christ's Body and Blood" and we can say, "I cannot explain this rationally, but only through faithfulness to Christ's command to eat and drink." Oddly enough, We don't need to overthink the Eucharist. Which is why the Orthodox commune infants: it isn;t about what we think or say about it, rather it is centered on our faith and trust in Christ to fulfill what He has commanded and what He has promised. This is less about the head and more about the heart, wherein we find Christ and the Kingdom of God, approaching this kingdom with the faith of a child.
Thank you very much ,i was just thinking about introducing it weekly to my congregation. Hoping that it would help communicate the mystical and spiritual feasting of our Lord and king in a more profound way . Thank you for your message of love to God’s people. God bless you. Amen
Thanks for another great video. I know a lot of discussion about the Lord's Supper deals with the "types of presence" in the supper, because that seems to be what separates the various Christian communities. However, it would be nice to hear an exposition on the idea, and evolution, of the Lord's supper/Eucharist as a sacrifice. Thanks, Dr. Ortlund, for these videos.
The presence in the Eucharist is the Holy Spirit. Jesus tells us in John 6:63 that the flesh is worthless it is the Holy Spirit. In John 6:68 Peter said that it is to give Eternal life (Holy Spirit and Light) and save the unsaved.
The last Supper was a Rememberance only as they all were previously saved.
1 Corinthians 2:14-16 ESV
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. [15] The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. [16] "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.
John 6
Lord’s Prayer… panem nostrum quotidianum de nobis hodie
Do this in memory of me….
This is why I’m Catholic.
Your view should first be Formed…so you can see the error of this “Re”formed view.
Dr. Ortlund I do believe you should've prefeced this video by stating that "Real Presence" is not the majority view among Baptists.
Maybe reformed, not necessarily Calvinist as that has nothing to do with the topic. Many reformed aren’t Calvinist 😬
Thank you for all your efforts, I'm a reformed.Baptist and you have been very helpful in so many areas
17:33
Yes, remember in Scripture when that unworthy guy partook of the Lord's Supper? Oh ya, Judas. Then he was damned. Yes, come eagerly, but if in grave sin, first be cleansed.
What I’m struggling most to understand with respect to this view is how the body of Christ (a physical thing) is present in a spiritual way. Is there a Reformed source that dives deeply into that? The idea of the spiritual presence of a physical thing is sort of breaking my brain.
Great video Gavin!
watching this now. I think Chan is right about the replacement of the LS in a sense. The LS was the main central feature for a good while. Then the Protestants brought back the Word as central also. The Word was also central in biblical and in early Christianity along with the sacraments. Thus, the sacraments and especially the LS lost some of the centrality since it is now shared with the Word.
To be clear I see word and sacrament central in Biblical and early Church worship. At some point in the Middle Ages the centrality of the Word diminished and thus the sacraments became the only thing that was really central. The reformers (and the pre-reformers) brought back the Word as central along with the sacrament.
The last supper (Holy Sacrifice of the Mass) was the central part of the Christian faith until 1517 - scripture has always had a prominent role because Christianity is a liturgical faith, and so the liturgy of the Word is incredibly important - but scripture should never have replaced the centrality of the Eucharist, which as Jesus says in John 6 is true food and true drink, and as he says in the last supper narrative, that the offering of the Eucharist is for the forgiveness of sins - what the reformers did was a complete travesty and disaster.
What’s so mystical about Protestant lords supper, if it’s some form of symbol? A cup of coffee and doughnut does not a communion make.
This is the first time I’ve ever heard a Christian say that the communion is more important than God’s word.
This is one of the criticisms of the Roman Catholics
I appreciate the thoughtful reflection and presentation of the Reformed position is.
The remark that Christ Jesus is locally present in heaven and, amongst the very strictest of Calvinists, that it would be contrary to a true Human Nature for Him to have anything other than a local, confined presence, demonstrates that the separation between the Lutheran and the Reformed is a Christological issue, not merely semantic; that is, how one understands "is" or "presence."
Thank you for this video Pastor Ortlund.
I know this is an old video, but this was super helpful for my own thinking as I am currently discerning between Anglicanism and the Pentecostal church of my upbringing.
May I ask why only those two traditions? There are a good number of Charismatic Anglicans, but also EPC presbyterians. Is it determining how sacramental you are convicted that the sacraments are?
Could you consider doing a video on closed communion? I really struggle with being left out of communion at Loved Ones’ churches. To me, Communion is the big moment for “communion of the [earthly/heavenly] saints”, for unity of true Believers.
Churches who take the Supper at face value get great comfort and assurance from it. Moreover, they consider it to be a basic belief because to them it requires no interpretation, only believing, taking, and eating. So when someone comes to church and they refuse to believe something so easy and basic, it's hard not to suspect them of being a "reviler." And according to 1 Cor 5:11, we are not to eat even secular food with christians who do not accept correction, i.e. revilers. Hope that helps explain the perspective.
You need to truly believe that the host is the body of Christ and you must receive Him in a state of grace (no mortal sin), otherwise it is sacrilege to receive the host. (In this state, you are ready to join the saints in heaven)
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. Let no one who has a quarrel with his neighbor join you until he is reconciled by the Lord. In every place and time let there be offered to me a clean sacrifice."
@@jamesrey3221 The RCC Eucharist is sacrilegious.
@@jamesrey3221 The Didache states no where in it that The Thanksgiving is the real and physical body and blood of Christ. It has great reverence for the ordinance, and takes about a third or so of this little book in giving instruction for it, but it just doesn't state that. The Didache which is such an early writing, predating most of the church fathers, really showed me how this transubstantiation doctrine evolved over time and became more and more elaborate.
@@joycegreer9391 The RCC Eucharist practice is hyper reverent. We need to be careful what we call sacrilege. They hold is as their most sacred and revered sacrament, as far as I can tell.
Appreciating your teaching channel Brother.. 🙏
I'd say it's more than comfort Gavin. "except ye eat of my body and drink of my flesh you have no life in me".- Jesus
This seems very similar to an Eastern Orthodox perspective
"He carried HIS OWN BODY IN HIS HANDS AND GAVE IT TO THEM TO EAT ", ( Augustine). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink and, the new Passover Lamb to be consumed for our salvation!
I know it would require more work on your part, but I would love it if you posted links in the description to past videos you mention over the course of the video I’m currently watching.
It seems to me the Orthodox get this right in teaching that the bread literally becomes His flesh and the wine His blood, to whatever degree that is possible. That is why it is a Sacrament--or rather a "sacred mystery" that does not need a philosophical explanation for the hows and whys, but rather a mystery to be thankful for. This is also a serious mystery and not one to take lightly or flippantly. As St. Paul is rather explicit about this in 1 Corinthians 11:27-30. Taking it in an "unworthy" manner will cause this medicine to be a poison, to the point of even causing physical death (V.30). This teaching denies any idea of the Eucharist being a symbol, for how can a mere symbol make you sick or cause you to physically die? I struggle with this "reformed" view...why does it need reform? When did it become in need of reform? If the Reformers truly think the bread contained the "real" presence, when does that become actualized?
Amazing explanation. Very enlightening.
I am a Pentecostal minister (Assemblie of God) from Brazil, and I have learned a lot from all of your videos.
Thanks and keep up the great work.
Forte abraço. Deus te abençoe! O Gavin é um privilégio aqui na internet.
@@josueinhan8436 Com certeza! Tenho aprendido muito com ele, tanto pelo exemplo de cristão, quanto pelo conteúdo que produz. Abraços pra ti, meu irmão!
@@jonathanfraires irmão, confere dps esse livro dele do Thomas Watson. Está à venda por 13 reais na Amazon. Chama-se "A Ceia do Senhor". Foi traduzido pra português. Abração, Deus te abençoe
Sur ce sujet de l’eucharistie, M. Crammer ne comprend pas que son point de vue sort d’une vision trop personnelle de Calvin et de ses perroquets ! Il oublie que les Apôtres ont reçu un enseignement du Christ : après avoir renvoyé la foule Il expliquait tout en détail à Ses disciples ! C’est devenu l’enseignement apostolique justement des apôtres et des Pères de l’Eglise, transmis fidèlement pendant plus de 2000 ans. Ces cogitations fumeuses, qui ont à peine 500 ans, comment leur attribuer un certificat de conformité? Célébrer une cène sans autel, sans prêtre, quand pour l’eucharistie, on respecte le Sacrifice du Temple de Jérusalem: une offrande , déposée sur l’autel de Dieu , puis consommée par les prêtres… M. J. Herschmeier a parfaitement raison, et la vision calviniste, une entourloupe, rien d’autre!
This man clearly knows in his conscious that Catholicism is true, because he is always trying too hard to justify weak/heretical protestant traditions in contrast to Catholicism or he is focusing on things almost as a Catholic, he obviously shows he is aware of the inadequacy of protestantism
May the Holy Spirit give him courage and knowledge for conversion.
He needs to justify his position, the only means to do that is prove that Catholicism is false. Pity this guy and pray for him
Wow are you deceived. He clearly shows how Catholicism claims are weak/heretical and how Protestant most clearly reflects the early faith of the first few centuries.
May you come to Truth and convert away from your false church with its false authority.
@@jamesrey3221 Hahaha. You all lack the knowledge and understanding he has. You are most to be pitied.
I think if you agree on the presence of it you have to also ask the question: Who has the authority to do this? Who has the authority to "consecrate" the Lord's Supper and give it to others? It's been a question on my mind for a while.
Good question:
(Only thru Apostolic succession) Only a priest ordained thru the sacrament of the Holy Orders can consecrate the host of the communion and absolve a sin in the sacrament of confession.
Not even an angel, nor archangel, nor any other created power, can consecrate the host and absolve our sin - “what you bind on earth is bound in heaven”
St. John Chrysostom: "On the Priesthood" "The Paraclete Himself, instituted this vocation, and persuaded men while still abiding in the flesh to represent the ministry of angels."
All believers are priests according to the New Testament. Your view is more of developed tradition than obeying the Lord by faith. Acts 2:42-43 seems to suggest the participation of all believers, even the unfortunate passage in 1 Corinthians 11. If the "yoke" of "ordained class of priests", in my view was the norm in the New Testament Church, it would have been difficult to partake of the Lord's supper under heavy persecution the Church went through. The leadership in the Church evolved or developed slowly, abandoning the apostolic New Testament type of a group of elders leading the Church ~ who were normally chosen from the congregation with their own families and living among their own community to a monarchical hierarchy of a single Bishop in a post apostolic era.
There is a “formula” that makes baptism valid. Is there anything similar necessary, in your opinion, for the Lord’s Supper?
Good question. I'm not Gavin, but I would say at the very least using the Lord's words of institution and the elements of bread and wine. One could add a validly ordained celebrant, the epiclesis (calling upon the Holy Spirit),...the list could get quite long.
@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes …I don’t think they have enough evidence to make this claim. Justin Martyr in 155AD outlined the Mass, including the Eucharist. The words of institution were not mentioned, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t exist. Much of the documents from that time period did not survive…
@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes Thanks for that interesting point! Sometimes a longstanding practice can be assumed to be at the core of a liturgical act when in fact it is not. I'm curious, Prof. Nemes, do you know if there was a discernable oral tradition that predates our earliest Eucharistic liturgies? There must have been something spoken, right? Do we know the general shape of that?
@@mj6493 thanks for your response. Would believing the doctrine of “real presence” in the Lord’s Supper be necessary? In other words, is there an objective reality which unfolds no matter the subjective belief of the one who says these words (the words of the Lord’s consecration)?
@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes I'm not sure if you want to call it a formula, but Paul clearly says, "For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you,..." in his letter to the Corinthians in relation to the verba. And when exactly would he have received this from the Lord? Does he mean he received it from Peter in Damascus? I'll leave it to the scholars.
Good video, however I think a balanced and accurate historical theology of the Protestant Reformation reveals they hold the primacy of the Word preached, not the primacy of the sacraments. That does not mean a low view or undervaluing the sacraments. Just like how Paul placed baptism under the preached word in his priority as an apostle 1 Cor. 1:17. The sacraments are appended to the word for the purpose of confirming or sealing it, they do not exist independently of the word but it is the word that gives life to the sacraments. The same grace received through the sacraments is the same grace received in the preached word.
I think this is an inaccurate statement. The early reformers all had sacramental theology. Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopals, Methodists, Presbyterians all believe in some form of real presence. The more recent in history you go, the more sacraments are dropped for “Bible only” denominations.
@@billmartin3561 bill, first, Lutherans and Anglicans should be distinguished from the historic reformed churches and reformed confessions (Methodists as well). The “Reformed” are distinguished from the Anglicans, Lutherans, Anabaptists, etc. in multiple ways for multiple reasons. Many have seemed to lose that distinguishing classification today. The primacy of the preached word was central to the growth and doctrine of the Reformation. Also, as a Reformed Presbyterian who subscribes to the original Westminster Standards, I do not deny a high view of the Lord’s Supper. It is not a bare memorial, the Reformed repudiate that. Just because Reformers and Reformed confessions held the primacy of the preached word does not mean they diminished the sacraments. It’s not inaccurate to say the Reformed churches held the primacy of the preached word while maintaining a high view of the sacraments, it’s what the reformers and reformed confessions attested to. I’m not arguing on behalf of Lutherans or Anglicans or Baptists or Methodists, I’m simply reiterating what the Reformed branch of the Reformation heralded. It’s what the ministers were primarily commissioned to do in the first place 2 Tim 4:2
Jacob, I concur with your well-written assessment: it is quite clear that Calvin believed in the primacy of the Word preached. I think Dr. Ortlund may be misreading Watson, though I haven't read a ton of Watson myself.
Bill, when we are discussing anything "Reformed", we are not discussing "Bible only". The latter is the result of a degeneration of primarily baptist theology and has a different origin and history.
@@jacobcarne8316 I appreciate your qualification there, not claiming to speak for all Protestants. As a Lutheran, and influenced by Anglicanism greatly (liturgically and otherwise), I can with some authority represent the "other side" of the Reformation.
It is true that the Reformers as such emphasized the primacy of the Word in an age that held primacy to the sacraments (and the sacrifice of the mass, more specifically)... yet, I see this not as an attempt to "put the sacraments in their place", but to elevate the [preached] Word to the same level that the sacraments enjoyed in the Middle Ages (thus restoring, rather than introducing the ancient balance between the synactic Liturgy of the Word, and the Eucharistic Liturgy).
Their relationship is one of reciprocity, not subordination. The sacraments are "visible words" (to quote St Augustine) but the Word -- preached -- is rightly understood as having sacramental effect (vocal sounds carrying the grace of the Holy Spirit to the hearers); hence why we Lutherans have always classified Holy Absolution within Private Confession, as a "third sacrament" despite no obvious _visible_ sign.
Heresy
I love and appreciate your insight brother. Many times the Lord has used you to help keep me grounded.
I doubt that is true sir, I have been to a Protestant service and they literally downplay the body and blood of Christ by serving the people grape juice/ black berry juice instead of wine
But way a go eventhough I personally think you are playing pseudohistory, you are calling Protestants to come back to the root all church fathers believe, that His flesh is food indeed and His blood is drink indeed (John 5:55)
Thanks for this. I think I'm with Luther though
The ending is beautiful.
beautiful teaching--God bless all you do
I didn't think that any Baptists had anything but a Memorialist view of the Eucharist.
I agree 100%.
Paraphrasing here but, Dr. Ortlund even mentioned how this is the traditional, reformed Baptists view.
It's certainly a minority view among Baptists
What can I say but admire this deep sermon! Sir. Excellent explanation 👌 of the traditional protestant view on the "Bread" & "Wine". This is the reason why I converted to protestantism: my impurity, though I may struggle against it, coupled with repentance is the exact requisite of the admission to the table of The Lord.
If your view of any type of "real presence" doesn't logically lead to full on worship and adoration of the Eucharist (post-consecration), then your view ain't real enough.
And I'm sorry, there is no middle ground between the Eucharist is Christ and the Eucharist isn't Christ. You can have all kinds of rhetoric and imagination you like but at the end of the day, if the bread and wine remain the same thing they were before, nothing supernatural has occurred and nothing supernatural is bestowed.
Reformed here. It does lead to adoration but the proper manner is according to the sacrament. We adore Christ as he gives himself to us in the elements, by eating and drinking him. This is why he offers himself to us in the form of food and drink. Christ is worshipped in the eating and drinking of his body and blood, rather than by placing in a box to be seen.
There is no middle ground between the whole sacrament which includes the act of eating and drinking, or merely Christ offering himself in the elements of food but we choose not to obey the command to eat his flesh where he has offered himself to us -- placing him in a kind of cage to be gawked at. Take the sacrament seriously with real devotion, means to eat and drink.
@@TheologiaEvangelicahave you ever thought that the Ark of the Covenant contained the manna God gave the Israelites and that Jesus is the fulfillment of that?
Christ is not displayed in a cage like a zoo animal. His body and blood is preserved in the Tabernacle as the manna was preserved in the Ark of the Covenant.
Read John 6 and everything will become clear:
“31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” 32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” 34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.” 35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.”
Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.". Things seemed to be going pretty well. That is until Jesus said “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.” This was too much for many of his disciples and “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” Jesus turns to the 12 and asks, “Will ye also go away? Vs 61, Jesus did not back down, for He said, "Does this offend you?" it offends protestants💖
This argument has becoming a meme now in Protestant circles
incredibly comforting
A totally unbiblical and ahistorical view. I'd love to have a conversation with Dr Ortlund on this or anyone. I know he's busy but I need clarifications.
In what way is it unbiblical?
@Dee-nonamnamrson8718 let's talk about it. Are you willing to live stream or zoom call?
Thank you so much for doing this video, Dr. Gavin. I've been praying for clarity on this issue for a long time and I'm really grateful for you taking the time to explain your position on it, as well as this wonderful book.
You mentioned that there are a ton of quotes from the church fathers that he interprets. Does that also include Ignatius's quote?
I would like to see more in depth videos on this that specifically deals with the early church fathers and their interpretation of the Eucharist.
It just doesn't seem like the early church only believed in a spiritual presence, but rather a mystical, physical one as well, even if they didn't believe in transubstantiation.
That's why Lutherans will hold to both a physical and spiritual view.
Could you please address whether or not this was a clear teaching, and whether or not the spiritual presence belief originated primarily with Calvin, (though you pointed out that the Waldensians actually held to this view as well.)
Also, are you a Calvinist who believes that God predestined certain people to go to hell, or do you just value other aspects of Calvin's writings?
I hope you and your family have a blessed Thanksgiving, Dr. Ortlund! I am personally thankful to God and you for this channel!
Keep studying as the Reformed and Lutherans debated this topic with Scripture, the Creed and extensive patristic studies. It really is the key issue in Lutheran/Reformed. Thomas Cranmer, Peter Verginili, Calvin, Chemnitz, etc
James white has videos on igantius as well
@@truthisbeautiful7492 what view do you hold?
As a greek speaking and reading the original language text of the New Testament i would be a satanic liar if i said there is no real Holy Eucharist as the body and blood of Lord Jesus Christ.
Would it follow (from Calvin's logic 14:40) that the spiritual benefit is received by the believer who comes in faith regardless of how the bread and cup are perceived (i.e. Tran substantial or memorialist)?
I think generally the Reformed tradition _would_ place the Sacraments "below" the Word in general, and Watson is saying _in these particular ways_ the Supper is superior, but generally not. Calvin holds (in one of his tracts on the topic) that the Sacrament only has meaning and validity _because of_ the Word, therefore is necessarily inferior.
Agreed. But to be fair, this is essentially similar to what Luther would say is the relationship between Word and Sacrament as well.
@@matthewlamaster342 But while the sacraments "derive" their meaning and power from the Word (both written, in terms of institution and incarnate by way of command)... the Word can also rightly be called "sacramental" (there is grace/power in the Word), thus their relation is less derivative and more reciprocal.
This is why I don't see them as competitive, at least not in regards to the "altar vs pulpit" tension. There is no tension, they are both central, the Liturgy of the Word (synaxis), and the Liturgy of the Eucharist (meal) -- both informing each other. The Reformers merely brought _equal weight_ to the sermon (lacking in the Middle Ages) while maintaining the Medieval importance of the supper.
@@vngelicath1580 Yes, about the alter vs. pulpit tension. I've noticed that Catholic like to use the fact they have an alter for their worship, rather than a mere pulpit, but they use it as a bully pulpit.
This was awesome. Thanks!
Thank you, Pastor. I have been pondering this topic for months. You helped me work through it.
If you deny the real presences of Christ in the Eucharist, you are down playing it to a certain degree. Calvin's view was unique to him.
Haha! I love how Ortlund loves to use the term, "lower case 'c' catholic" as if there is really such a thing. Whether you use lower case 'c' catholic or upper case 'C' Catholic there is absolutely no difference whatsoever. The word 'Catholic' indicates orthodoxy in doctrine. If you teach the heresies of Protestantism then you are not Catholic in the slightest bit. Lower case 'c' catholic does not authorize the teaching of heresies.
Keep talking Gavin, you are undermining 500 years of anti-Catholicism. You are single-handedly bringing souls closer to the Catholic Church. Keep closing the gap. You have recognized that as more people read the Scriptures divorced from the doctrines of denominationalism then they are compelled to enter into the Catholic Church. To be steeped in Church history is to seize being Protestant. You are right to recognize this and you are doing all that you can to make Protestantism appear as Catholic as possible in the hope of keeping more people from crossing the Tiber. It matters not how much you mimic the Catholic Sacraments Gavin, you can NEVER grant authenticity to the Sacraments. Phony-baloney sacraments are not Sacraments at all. The more Biblically and historically accurate that you get, then the more Catholic that you get. But the Truth is that there can be no Salvation outside of the Catholic Church, and there can be no Salvation without the authentic Sacraments of the Catholic Church - no matter how much you try to clone the Catholic Church.
He talks about sinners needing to come to "communion" - WOW! Satan is surely loving that one Gavin. There is no example of that doctrine anywhere in Scripture. The Bible says to examine your conscience before partaking in Communion, and not to receive unworthily. Sacrilege. Sacrilege. Sacrilege. The profaning of that which is Holy. But of course, we know that Protestant bread is just as unholy as Protestantism is, therefore there can NEVER be any sacrilege in Protestantism. But the average Joe does not understand this. All he knows is that the Catholic Church, in keeping with the Sacred Scriptures will not allow sinners and outsiders to share in the Supper of the Lamb, and so Orlund has seen an opportunity to snatch up the ignorant to keep them from entering into Communion with God in the Catholic Church. He is selling counterfeit goods. Buyer beware!
Satan and Ortlund have a common goal, and that is to keep souls from receiving the Sacraments of Salvation. Oh my, but God works in mysterious ways, and I can see more people fully uniting with the Catholic Church because of Ortlund's efforts. Phony sacraments won't save you. Come home to the Catholic Church and receive the authentic Sacraments that Our Lord gave to us.
Kata holos in Greek is "whole church". It wasn't until the third century that anyone considered the Roman Catholic church the "whole church".
@@Dee-nonamnamrson8718 Says who?
@@purgatorean Sorry, I left out part of the Greek. Ignatius first used it. The word comes from ancient Greek καθολικός (pl. καθολικοί), derived from καθ' ὅλου (kath'olou, "generally") from κατά (kata, "down") and ὅλος (holos, "whole"), meaning "concerning the whole, universal, general"
@@Dee-nonamnamrson8718 I certainly agree with your take on the Greek, So in effect, Acts 9:31 can be read as " the Catholic Church in Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace........" A more accurate translation would be "according to the whole". To be Catholic means to believe and obey what the Church teaches.
Early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes: “As regards ‘Catholic,’ its original meaning was ‘universal’ or ‘general.’ . . . in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon). . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church” (Early Christian Doctrines, 190-1).
Ignatius of Antioch
“Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).
The Martyrdom of Polycarp
“And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. For every word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will be fulfilled” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 16:2 [A.D. 155]).
The Muratorian Canon
“Besides these [letters of Paul] there is one to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy, in affection and love, but nevertheless regarded as holy in the Catholic Church, in the ordering of churchly discipline. There is also one [letter] to the Laodiceans and another to the Alexandrians, forged under the name of Paul, in regard to the heresy of Marcion, and there are several others which cannot be received by the Church, for it is not suitable that gall be mixed with honey. The epistle of Jude, indeed, and the two ascribed to John are received by the Catholic Church (Muratorian fragment [A.D. 177]).
Tertullian
“Where was [the heretic] Marcion, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago-in the reign of Antonius for the most part-and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherius, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 30 [A.D. 200]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishops; and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priest of God, believing that they are secretly in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and catholic, is not split or divided, but is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere to one another” (Letters 66[67]:8 [A.D. 253]).
Amen!
This view is so close to the Catholic view. But shouldn't such a high view requires that the ministers of the Sacrament of Christ's Body be ordained to this ministry in a valid manner? Wouldn't that reverence be proper to the Sacrament of Christ's Body?
In my experience, Orthodox worship places far more emphasis on the sacrament/mystery of the Eucharist than modern Protestant worship -- in Orthodoxy, the Eucharist is the climax of the liturgy, whereas it is just another thing that happens to be lumped into Protestant Sunday church. That has been my experience; your mileage may vary.
I like the message of encouragement to the table, but functionally speaking, we don’t want the warnings of approaching the table unworthily to be nullified. The warnings were for the Church after all, not for unbelievers.. “this is why some of YOU are sick and dying.” If I’m in the pew, and my mind kinda wondered around during the sermon or I wasn’t as engaged in worship as I should be, I’m probably gonna abstain from the Lords table that day.
Blessed is he who comes in the name of the lords supper.
Hi Gavin! Just really curious about the Scottish minister you mentioned at 18.22. What was his name? This really moved me. Thank you.