Is There a Difference Between Calvin and Zwingli on the Lord's Supper?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 вер 2024
- My website: www.jordanbcoop...
Patreon: / justandsinner
Publishing house: www.jspublishin...
In this video, I discuss John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli's respective views on the Lord's Supper in comparison to that of Luther.
As someone who holds to Calvin's view, my question is this. You said you want Christ to be present objectively in the bread and wine regardless of if we have faith. But if you don't have faith and you partake of the body and blood of Christ, aren't you just bringing judgement on yourself? If you don't have faith, why would you want to receive Christ?
I don't see why you would want to. I also don't see why this is relevant, especially as a challenge to the theology (if that is what it is).
The Same Lord Who is Bodily present in the bread and wine is The Same Lord Who gives the Gift of Saving Faith to believe He is Bodily Present. Ya see? God does it all, by Grace, through His Gift of Saving faith!! Glory be to Him Alone!
I have come to a hypothesis of reconciling the real presence by connecting Christ and creation. If all things are literally made through Him the elements are also made through Him. All things at there metaphysical foundation are of Christ human body. Look at Genesis as Christological. Christ (earth was under the waters of death) third Day the earth (Christ dead body ) is raised out of the water (baptism). From this body God commands seed and vine. Seed and vine is bread and wine. Mankind is given these to eat for life. lots more to say but this view may be able to unite Lutherans and reformed about the supper. If anyone interested in this view I have written a thesis about it, linked on my channel.
If you really hold Calvin’s view, then you know that those who do not feed on Christ in the Supper bring judgment on themselves. To feed on Christ is to have eternal life and to have Christ dwelling in you and you in him. Not everyone who presses the sacrament with their teeth feeds upon Christ.
I don’t really see why it matters. You wouldn’t want to receive Christ but what you want is irrelevant. You’re receiving Christ either way. That’s part of why some Lutherans practice closed communion, and they don’t think unbelievers should take communion.
"We feed on Christ in the Supper the way we feed on Christ in the Word"
That's how Reformed people teach it today from my experience
I'll say this much: Dr. Cooper represents Calvin's view better than most, so credit where credit is due. However, when he says that Calvin's view is two different conviction being held together, I absolutely agree. Just like we hold that God is one in essence and three in person or that Christ is truly man and truly God. We don't know how it works, but it's taught in Scripture and we say Amen. So when it comes to the sacraments, Calvin basically held that a literal interpretation of Christ's words forces absurdity, crass hyper-literalism, or downright theological error. So in dealing with 1 Cor. 10:17-18, he accepts that there is a spiritual communion that occurs that we can't fully understand. So when Dr. Cooper asks, "Is Christ coming objectively in the means of grace to me here on earth when I receive this bread and wine? When this thing is put in my mouth, is the body of Christ given for me?" Based on my reading of Calvin (as a Reformed guy), I would say yes to that, and I think Calvin would say yes as well. Calvin affirmed the objective nature of the sacrament. What he denied was the subjective efficacy to the unbelieving. So for Calvin, the Supper is most certainly about Christ. But the unbelieving do not receive Him since they don't have faith. Now I appreciate that you recognize that the Reformed view of the Supper is highly nuanced, but the nuance I think Dr. Cooper misses is the objective presence of Christ versus the subjective efficacy of the sacrament. For those who eat without faith, it is actually efficacious to judgment, we agree. One last point, Dr. Cooper says Calvin views the Supper as only effective for the elect. I would want to refine that language a bit and say "for those who have faith" instead of elect since the elect are not saved prior to justification. Anyway, figured I'd throw my two cents in here. So long, my conservative Lutheran friends.
That sounds pretty similar to Wesley.
@Heresy Hunters
lol remember debating you over at Catholic Answers on the subject of the Eucharist. Remember I proved it was scientifically real? Why didn’t you answer? Also, if you acknowledge Calvin as a reformer, that means you also acknowledge the church to be true at one point. So the question is now, when did the Catholic Church become corrupt?
@@johnfitzgeraldkennedy5265 I don't remember this, and a metaphysical belief cannot be proved through physical science, so whatever your "proof" is, I know that it's categorically wrong. Your question about when the church apostatized is like asking when exactly dark grey becomes black. There's no exact point, but I would say definitely by the time of the 4th Lateran Council, we see Rome departing from the doctrines of both the East and the early church in major ways and forming distinctives which are attributes of Romanism alone.
@Heresy Hunters
Try and disprove this:
EUCHARISTIC MIRACLES
Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano, Italy-8th century
Eucharistic miracle of Braine, France-1153
Eucharistic miracle of Ferrara, Italy-1171
Eucharistic miracle of Augsburg, Germany-1194
Eucharistic miracle of Alatri, Italy-1228
Eucharistic miracle of Santarem, Portugal-early 13th century
Eucharistic miracle of Florence, Italy-1230 and 1595
Eucharistic miracle of Daroca, Spain-1239
Eucharistic miracle of Olmütz, Czechoslovakia-1242
Eucharistic miracle of Regensburg, Germany-1257
Eucharistic miracle of Bolsena-Orvieto, Italy-1263
Eucharistic miracle of Paris, France-1274 and 1290
Eucharistic miracle of Slavonice, Czechoslovakia-1280
Eucharistic miracle of Offida, Italy-1280
Eucharistic miracle of Hasselt, Belgium-1317
Eucharistic miracle of Siena, Italy-1330 and 1730
Eucharistic miracle of Blanot, France-1331
Eucharistic miracle of Amsterdam, The Netherlands-1345
Eucharistic miracle of Macerata, Italy-1356
Eucharistic miracle of Brussels, Belgium-1370
Eucharistic miracle of Middleburg-Louvain, Belgium-1374
Eucharistic miracle of Seefeld, Austria-1384
Eucharistic miracle of Dijon, France-before 1433
Eucharistic miracle of Avignon, France-1433
Eucharistic miracle of Turin, Italy-1453
Eucharistic miracle of Morrovalle, Italy-1560
Eucharistic miracle of Alcalá de Henares, Spain-1597
Eucharistic miracle of Faverney, France-1608
Eucharistic miracle of Paterno, Italy-1772
Eucharistic miracle of Bordeaux, France-1822
Eucharistic miracle of Dubna, Poland (now Dubna, Russia)-1867
Eucharistic miracle of The Two Miracles of Stich, West Germany-1970
But just take the top one for example. The Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano, Italy-8th century.
www.icra.it/gerbertus/2016/Gerb-9-2016-Sigismondi-MiracoLa-21-26.pdf
In 1970-'71 and taken up again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena.
The analyses were conducted with absolute and unquestionable scientific precision and they were documented with a series of microscopic photographs.
These analyses sustained the following conclusions:
The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood.
The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.
The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.
In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.
The Flesh is a "HEART" complete in its essential structure.
The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin).
In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.
In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.
The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.
Just look at the picture. It’s real flesh. Also I noticed you admitted the Church was, at one point, not corrupt. Because you still call Calvin, Zwingli, Luther, Wycliffe etc. “reformers” and not “revolutionists.” What are you? Anglican? Lutheran?
@Heresy Hunters
Try and disprove this:
EUCHARISTIC MIRACLES
Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano, Italy-8th century
Eucharistic miracle of Braine, France-1153
Eucharistic miracle of Ferrara, Italy-1171
Eucharistic miracle of Augsburg, Germany-1194
Eucharistic miracle of Alatri, Italy-1228
Eucharistic miracle of Santarem, Portugal-early 13th century
Eucharistic miracle of Florence, Italy-1230 and 1595
Eucharistic miracle of Daroca, Spain-1239
Eucharistic miracle of Olmütz, Czechoslovakia-1242
Eucharistic miracle of Regensburg, Germany-1257
Eucharistic miracle of Bolsena-Orvieto, Italy-1263
Eucharistic miracle of Paris, France-1274 and 1290
Eucharistic miracle of Slavonice, Czechoslovakia-1280
Eucharistic miracle of Offida, Italy-1280
Eucharistic miracle of Hasselt, Belgium-1317
Eucharistic miracle of Siena, Italy-1330 and 1730
Eucharistic miracle of Blanot, France-1331
Eucharistic miracle of Amsterdam, The Netherlands-1345
Eucharistic miracle of Macerata, Italy-1356
Eucharistic miracle of Brussels, Belgium-1370
Eucharistic miracle of Middleburg-Louvain, Belgium-1374
Eucharistic miracle of Seefeld, Austria-1384
Eucharistic miracle of Dijon, France-before 1433
Eucharistic miracle of Avignon, France-1433
Eucharistic miracle of Turin, Italy-1453
Eucharistic miracle of Morrovalle, Italy-1560
Eucharistic miracle of Alcalá de Henares, Spain-1597
Eucharistic miracle of Faverney, France-1608
Eucharistic miracle of Paterno, Italy-1772
Eucharistic miracle of Bordeaux, France-1822
Eucharistic miracle of Dubna, Poland (now Dubna, Russia)-1867
Eucharistic miracle of The Two Miracles of Stich, West Germany-1970
But just take the top one for example. The Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano, Italy-8th century.
www.icra.it/gerbertus/2016/Gerb-9-2016-Sigismondi-MiracoLa-21-26.pdf
In 1970-'71 and taken up again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena.
The analyses were conducted with absolute and unquestionable scientific precision and they were documented with a series of microscopic photographs.
These analyses sustained the following conclusions:
The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood.
The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.
The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.
In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.
The Flesh is a "HEART" complete in its essential structure.
The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin).
In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.
In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.
The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.
Just look at the picture. It’s real flesh. Also I noticed you admitted the Church was, at one point, not corrupt. Because you still call Calvin, Zwingli, Luther, Wycliffe etc. “reformers” and not “revolutionists.” What are you? Anglican? Lutheran?
I read that the mature Calvin Eucharistic theology was actually extremely high; that h beleives we're feeding on the true body and blood of Christ which is itself conjoined to the sacramental signs. He writes:
"We must confess, then, that if the representation which God gave us in the Supper is true, the internal substance of the sacrament is conjoined with the visible signs; and as the bread is distributed to us by the hand, so the body of Christ is communicated to us in order that we may be partakers of it. Though there should be nothing more, we have good cause to be satisfied, when we understand that Jesus Christ gives us in the supper the proper substance of his body and blood, in order that we may possess it fully, and possessing it have part in all blessings"
And this seems to me to differ from Luther's understanding only in the matters of locality and carnal consumption.
Luther: the body and blood are somehow actually in this bread and wine
Calvin: this bread and wine are somehow also the body and blood
I feel like it’s not that different.
I was just listening to the institutes, book 4, ch 17 about the Lord's Supper. I noticed that Calvin only once, I think, even mentions the possibility that we are brought to heaven to participate in Christ. Even the involvement of the Spirit is not a primary focus for him, it seems. Of most importance is the eating by faith, above all.
Also, just a little note ;) In section 29 he talks about how, just as the water he walked on was obedient in accommodating his passage, so too were the stones in the wall of the house, moving away on account of his authority, to allow his passage. That was his suggestion. The point being that it wasn't on account of his glorified body that he appeared in their presence.
Dr.J, as a soteriology Calvinist I can appreciate your distinctions between those 3 views…please comment why our belief or SAVING FAITH in Christ would be the affirmation of our spiritually partaking of the Lords supper?!
John 6:63-64 (ESV)
[63] It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are Spirit & Life.
[64] But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.)
I appreciate that you articulate Calvins view better than most outside the reformed position. But your conclusions are wrong, the heart of the question that matters, is whether in the Supper I partake of Christ, Calvin says yes and Zwingli says no. The mystery of how the bread never ceases to be bread and wine never ceasing to be wine, is why sacrament is the mystery. Their views are not the same at all, not just in nuance but in what it is we partake in, the mode in Calvins view focuses on the Spirits union, Luther wouldn’t affirm this mode but it is agreeing on the heart which is that we partake of Christ. Zwingli would be outside on this view.
There's a lack of objectivity in Calvin's langauge. You partake of Christ only if you have faith, Christ is only given to the elect, etc. Whereas Lutherans understand sacraments as actually imparting faith in those who do not reject them. Hence why baptismal regeneration also goes hand in hand with sacramental union in the Lord's Supper.
I think the heart of the question is does one partake of Christ objectively and orally in the Lord's Supper regardless of their faith. Whether believer or unbeliever, elect or reprobate. Calvin and Zwingli would say no, because it all depends on the faith of the receiver. Luther and the RC would say yes, because the Words of God/Christ (this is my body) that are tied to the earthly elements are always true regardless of one's faith.
Zwingli believed in Christ's spiritual presence and in a spiritual participation in the crucified body and blood by faith (Phillip Schaff History of The Reformation Ch. 7).
In the confession to King Francis I Zwingli states,
"We believe that Christ is truly present in the Lord's supper; yea, that there is no communion without such presence... We believe that the true body of Christ is eaten in the communion, not in a gross and carnal manner, but in a sacramental and spiritual manner by the religious, believing, and pious heart."
Exactly. It’s very short sided to think Zwingli would think communion is like a memorial service.. I think Cooper is missing exploring what the “symbolic” act is for Zwingli. It’s about the grace given for all on the Cross. Faith certainly isn’t a precursor to the grace.
Calvin is Zwingli with a little bit of an attempt to bolt mysticism back into it, and as some others have pointed out, it could not weather modernity. Most Reformed are functionally memorialists now days. In fact, this attitude is widespread in Protestantism in general.
many "Reformed" need to go back to the historic confessions
"Reformed" baptists are a joke
Brethren assemblies here. We kind of have a spiritual real presence view, but it is not exactly reformed, because we don't believe Christ is present by the power of the Holy Ghost, but rather, by his own power. We believe Christ is really, spiritually, and specially present during the Lord's Supper. However, we believe He is not IN the bread and wine. I understand why this view might be called "memorialist", but we do believe the eucharist (the Lord's Supper) is us feasting WITH Christ. Beyond all the (often silly) nuances, though, our main problem with transubstantiation, and to a lesser extent, with the Lutheran and Orthodox views, does not spring from the communication of attributes, but from what the bread and the wine symbolize. The bread is the dead body of Christ (given for us), the blood is the shed blood of Christ. The symbols communicate that the blood, which is the life of the body, is outside the body, rendering it lifeless; that is, the bread and the wine are a symbol of the atonement, of a sacrifice (in this sense, we kind of think that if Jesus was literally in the eucharist, transubstantiation and all it implies would be the logical conclusion of the doctrine). However, regardless if Christ's body is omnipresent or not, it is indisputable that Christ's body today is glorified, that is THE ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN BELIEF. Thus, we have a contradiction: the eucharist is death, and Christ's glorified body cannot die. If Christ becomes death in the eucharist, it essentially becomes a denial of the resurrection (and that's why the Roman Catholic doctrine of concomitance sort of fixes that problem, but by "sacrificing" -pun intended-the meaning of the supper). Thus, we cannot believe the bread and the wine are literally Christ's body and blood. The beauty and uniqueness and centrality of the eucharist is that it is the Gospel in its full splendor. In the Lord's Supper, we remember His death for us, we feast with Him, thus not only remembering but also experiencing His resurrection and glorification, and we announce His second coming, our blessed hope. The eucharist also conveys other ideas, like Christian introspection, worship, Christian unity, etc., but it is the Gospel. This view is beautiful to me. I respect other views on the Supper, though, and I obviously consider all true believers in Christ as Christians.
The hymn The Church's one Foundation ends its opening stanza with these words "... WIth his own blood he bought hee and for her life he died."
The real presence does not necessarily equate to transubstantiation correct?
Yes, correct. Within the broad term 'real presence' we have at least four models: Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, Lutheranism, and Calvinism.
@@williamnathanael412 I would say Calvinism is not real presence. According to Calvin, you only partake of Christ in the Eucharist if you are a believer. That means the body and blood cannot truly be present. If it is truly present then everyone who eats it is recieving Christ, whether they are worthy or not.
Wow! This is so bad. It seems you haven't read Calvin at all, and if, you were not able to read him with an ounce of readiness to listen, of willingness to understand. I thought you were an academic?! Sorry, but this is simply the same bad lutheran polemics which is out there since 500 years. Congratulations! You added another chapter to this book: Lutheran Polemics on Reformed Theology authored by guys who aren't willing to understand their opponents. And there are no arguments! With this nonsense of course you are only convincing people who are already on your side and who have probably neither read Zwingli nor Calvin.
Minute 11: "There is really no difference between Calvin and Zwingli regarding the Lords supper … because when you get down to it there really isn't." :D Wow! You might win a prize for argumentation with this one: "There is no difference because their isn't."
1. GO AND DO THE WORK OF READING CALVIN (e.g. 1559 Inst IV,17)! Or his Answers to Westphal and Heshusen! AND THIS TIME LISTEN INSTEAD OF POLEMICIZING!
2. *GO AND READ Helmut GOLLWITZER'S BOOK "Coena Domini"!* GO AND READ MATHISON's "Given for You!" GO AND READ NEVIN "Mystical Presence"! GO AND READ THE FRENCH CONFESSION (1559) AND THE BELGIC CONFESSION (1563) AND THE SCOTISH CONFESSION (1560) which have a calvinian doctrine of the Supper.
3. Regarding Zwingli I would encourage you to read Dorothea Wendebourg's "Essen zum Gedächtnis".
Somebody who is not able to see the difference between Zwingli's and Calvin's view of the supper has either a ton of bias (as you do!) or is not able to read/listen. According to your way of understanding Calvin, Melanchthon probably has no different teaching regarding the Lord's Supper than Zwingli, hasn't he?
Calvin's doctrine of the Lord's supper is similar to Bucer's doctrine and the difference to Melanchthon's doctrine near the end of his live are minor (I'd like to study this further, but see eg Melanchthons Letter to Frederick III). Again: Read Gollwitzer, Coena Domini, 109ff to understand the matter you are talking about. Calvin taught that believers in the supper are participating in the true and real body of Christ (which Zwingli did never say!) but not with the mouth (as is the awkward teaching of Papists and Lutherans) but instead in faith through the Spirit. Regarding the communion with Christ as a communion with his godhuman person through his body Calvin agreed, Zwingli not. This is a difference at the centre of the matter. Of course … not with the mouth … but nevertheless.
If Reformed would be so unable in reading Luther and the Papists they might come to the conclusion that Luthers doctrine of Lords supper and the Roman Mass is actually the same… but of course this is nonsense. As is what you are talking here.
I think important question is this: Is Christ nourishing me through this meal? Is He the one doing all and serving, or am I doing something. I think here Calvin and Luther agreed. I don't believe that this was a good reason to divide the reformation churches.. Both lutherans and reformed were too strict. I know theology is important, but when it is time to celebrate the meal, we need to come together. Lords Supper is not an individualistic meal. After all if Calvin emphasized the faith and Spirit, faith is just looking to Christ. God bless you
I think Calvin tried too hard to explain how Christ was truly present. Keep it simple, it is not our burden to know *how* Christ was going to be present in the bread and wine. He just is.
I’m with Zwingli on this and I am thankful for his work on this. The Lords Supper is connected to the Passover lamb, a context Christian’s have largely ignored for some reason. Jesus was acting as the patriarch of the group, the same way a husband and father led his family in the meal, and used almost identical language for the lamb as for himself. He is taking the memorial dinner of the Passover lamb and drawing the line to His death on the cross. John 6 is another passage used but if you notice the crowds got it wrong and yet they were the ones understanding Jesus to say you need to eat my flesh. The only difference between those crowds, who didn’t understand the deeper meaning yet reacted correctly about the idea of eating another image of God’s flesh, and some later Christians is that later Christians just accept the idea of eating flesh as ok. Jesus corrects the idea, draws a connection to Him as manna from heaven, because He was from heaven, and makes it clear that to listen to his words and to follow his commands is to “eat his flesh”. It’s an analogy that the crowd misunderstood and later Christians mistook in the opposite direction and both camps miss Jesus’ point.
The readings of scripture that people have to do is to take a highly literal interpretation to what are clear symbols, analogies and imagery. On the face of it, the idea of eating an image bearer of God is clearly against God’s created order. Jews were ordered to destroy the tribes that we cannibals because of the practice. There is just not a single but of cultural, historical or theological consistency between the testaments for any other view besides memorial. All other views are based on an overly literal understanding of the text that has no connection to the authors intent, the imagery and symbolism used, the culture and history in which it took place.
In all the Presbyterian Churches I've attended, from EPC to PCA to ECO to PCUSA, it;s always Calvin's view that's taught, never Zwingli's. John Knox, the founder of Presbyterianism, taught Calvin's view, not Zwingli's, so you'll only find Zwingli's view in either Reformed Baptist Churches, or the low-Church Presby Churches that are functionally Reformed Baptist.
Please elaborate on the council of Chalcedon regarding the two natures of Christ in Lutheran theology and the Lords supper…
John Stephenson, writing in Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics: The Lord's Supper, speaks of Luther saying:
“Luther denounced deniers of the real presence as apostates who have set in train a process which must lead to the dissolution of all Christian dogma:”
He then quotes Luther as saying: “If we are to practice Christian unity with them and extend Christian love to them, we must also love and be satisfied with, or at least tolerate, their doctrine and behavior. Let anyone do that if he wishes. Not I. For Christian unity consists in the Spirit, when we are of one faith, one mind, one heart, Ephesians 4 [: 3ff.]. This, however, we will gladly do: in civil matters we are glad to be one with them, i.e., to maintain outward, temporal peace. But in spiritual matters, as long as we have breath, we intend to shun, condemn, and censure them, as idolaters, corrupters of God’s Word, blasphemers, and liars; and meanwhile, to endure from them, as from enemies, their persecution and schism as far and as long as God endures them; and to pray for them, and admonish them to stop. But to acquiesce in, keep silence over, or approve their blaspheming, this we shall not and cannot do.”
If this is what Luther considered Zwingli and company, which would have included Calvinists, then today’s Reformed, Baptists, and most other churches would have to be included as well, so a natural question arises, does the Lutheran Church consider people/churches with a non-Lutheran view of the Lord’s Supper to be “apostates, idolaters, and blasphemers”, and if not what has changed and how much in regard to what Luther wrote?
If they do hold radically different views, why would you not consider them apostates, idolaters and blasphemers?
In light of 1 Corinthians 11, in which the Apostle Paul speaks of the abuse of the Lord’s Supper, it is quite clear that denial of the real presence (i.e. Baptist view of the Supper) or questioning that the body of Christ can be and is omnipresent, (view of the Reformed), such a one is denying that Christ comes in the flesh. For just as anyone who eats and drinks the Lord’s body and blood without confessing that it is the real body and real blood of Jesus Christ, such a person eats and drinks eternal damnation upon himself; so also it must be concluded that even if this Baptist or Reformed follower of Zwingli or Calvin never eats Christ’s body and drinks His blood, and thus does not eat and drink to his eternal damnation, yet, nonetheless, such a one still denies that Christ is present everywhere according to both His human and divine natures. Thus, such a one denies the hypostatic union, ultimately denying the central doctrine of the incarnation. So in summary, such a one is an apostate. Our prayers should go out to all of our Baptist and Reformed friends, that they might repent and receive the Lord’s Supper to eat and drink for the forgiveness of their sins and not to their eternal damnation.
It’s seems that the word “apostates” was added to your list but is not present in the quote.
To say a church is in schismatic sin is one thing, to say apostate, that seems to be a further step removed from what Luther claimed.
It seems much more likely that Luther condemned this view as schismatic error, but does that result in loss of salvation for one who believes in Christ’s Lordship, divinity, and hypostatic union, but not the omnipresence of his humanity? Is one who believes erroneously about the supper, also in error about Christ such that true faith in Christ is removed? Why would it not be the case that Christ is partaken in truly by faith, though in doctrinal error?
The withholding of fellowship does not imply apostasy, but rather that the error is so serious as to prevent unity of fellowship in the supper, but that is far from declaring that the unforgivable sin of unbelief is at play rather than a sin that could be forgiven by the intercession of a brother (1 Jn 3). I would guess that Luther was trying to play the part of the better brother, not the part of the great accuser.
“Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’ And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.’” -Matthew 26:26-28 Truly, it IS His body and blood that we eat and drink in the Supper, and surely, mere bread and wine cannot be broken and poured out for the forgiveness of sins, for only the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ our LORD can do that. So we eat His flesh and drink His blood for the forgiveness of all our sins.
@Mr.Lutheran Guy
I’m Catholic and I’m very happy to agree with you on that one! 🤙
“It [the Eucharist] is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.” -Martin Luther (LUTHER’S SMALL CATECHISM, VI. The Sacrament of the Altar, p. 22, 1529)
“Who, but the devil, hath granted such a license of wrestling the words of the holy scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? Or, that it is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposeth upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: Not one of them ever said, it is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present. Surely it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: it is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.” -Martin Luther
(LUTHER’S COLLECTED WORKS, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7, p. 391)
“I confess that if Karlstadt, or anyone else, could have convinced me five years ago that only bread and wine were in the sacrament he would have done me a great service. At that time I suffered such severe conflicts and inner strife and torment that I would gladly have been delivered from them. I realized that at this point I could best resist the papacy . . . But I am a captive and cannot free myself. The text is too powerfully present, and will not allow itself to be torn from its meaning by mere verbiage.” -Martin Luther (Letter to the Christians at Strassburg in Opposition to the Fanatic Spirit, 1524; LW, Vol. 40, 68)
It shouldn't take 14 minutes to say "yes"
Also, at the institution of the Lords Supper those present ( excluding Judas ) already believed in Jesus objectively with saving faith !
I find all 3 views to be acceptable means of grace (RC, Luth, Calvin). As Calvin said, it was only in the mode of presence that they differed.
But should we worship the elements as God?
@@robertguidry2168 never
@@edrash1 that would be the issue with the catholic physical presence idea. If you believe that the elements are God's flesh, then one should worship them.
@@robertguidry2168 I don't think they do that though 🤔
@@Swiftninjatrev Catholics worship the host. It is called Eucharistic Adoration
This question is one that diverges quite a bit from the overall concern of the video. Nonetheless, it is concerned with the Lord's Supper in general - thus I ask it. Why do we take such statements as "I am the vine..." figuratively at all? If we hold that reason demands it then the Calvinists are sure to state that in the case of the Words of Institution reason demands a figurative interpretation also (even if of a different part of the statement). Any suggestions as to literature that will assist in this matter will be greatly appreciated.
I have this question also, but I'd wager it's the fact that Jesus referring to the elements as His body and His blood is a lot more of a drastic change to their expceted attributes than it would be for Christ to call himself "the vine". Applying God's attributes to an inanimate object is not to be taken lightly, especially when God does it and in the context of the Lord's Supper.
I notice the order is different: in "I am the vine", the subject is Christ, and the vine is the predicate. The other way round in "This is my body", the subject is what He has in His hands, and the predicate is Himself. There is no sense in Christ being a vine, but there is an astonishing sense in the Eucharist being Christ Himself, as there is an astonishing sense in the baby of Mary being the Creator of the Universe.
Of course, there is Paul saying that "that rock was Christ", but that is why the Lord didn't say "this bread is my body", but "this is my body". And Paul also speaks about "the bread that we break", but having as background the Lord's words, this can be read as figurative as "I am the vine".
Calvin would absolutely say that the bread and wine are “body and blood”. He said:
“So the bread is Christ’s body, as it assures us certainly of the exhibition of what it represents, or because the Lord in extending to us that visible symbol, gives us in fact along with it his own body; for Christ is no juggler, to mock us with empty appearances. Hence it is beyond all controversy, that the reality is here joined with the sign, or in other words that, so far as spiritual virtue [power] is concerned, we do as truly partake of Christ’s body as we eat the bread.”
Beza said it this way:
“We confess that in the Supper of the Lord not only the benefits of Christ, but the very substance itself of the Son of Man; that is, the same true flesh which the Word assumed into perpetual personal union . . . are not only signified, or set forth symbolically, typically, or in figure, like the memory of something absent, but are truly and really represented, exhibited, and offered for use.”
Not sure how much influence Ulrich had, but the second Helvetic is identical to Calvin’s view. I don’t think Bullinger and the other Swiss diverged much from it. The Consensus Tigurinus seems to confirm.
Well, some have certainly argued that there is a general agreement between Zwingli and Bullinger (and later Calvin), and I'm personally not in a place to have much of a strong opinion as to whether Zwingli ever expressed something beyond a mere memorialism. My own reading of Zwingli seems to support memorialism, but I confess that my reading of his work is pretty limited.
To say that the finite cannot have infinite attribute is like splitting Jesus from god into two distinct being so it kind of falacious considering this point of view
Simply cannot agree with you that the notions of ubiquity and the communication of attributes provides a more "objective" sense of the Real Presence. All of the sacramental views, including transubstatiation, are spiritually mediated.
I agree wholeheartedly with Calvin. And do I take my Jesus onto my tongue and into my mouth? Yes.
But the Bible and the Early Fathers never say that it is Jesus's body and blood on the tongue and in the mouth physically in any way.
@@wilsonw.t.6878 Yes, they do:
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
I believe Calvin is correct on this, though it was/is a much older/Orthodox position. It IS the body and blood of Christ. In the sacrament, we are made one and are walking out into the world as Christ's body on the earth- walking in one mission. "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread." - 1 Corinthians 10:17. In the eucharist, we are joined to the life of the Godhead through the Holy Spirit. Hence, why it was better Christ went to the Father; then the Holy Spirit will be sent down for the salvation of many beyond the one generation.
Calvin over-rationalizes the Real Presence because he resists the supernatural power of the sacrament. That is he rejects the reality of Sacrament. If it were not objective eating unworthily would not condemn the communicant who does not discern the body. The faithless remain unaffected.
Heisers take on the Lords Supper is the most accurate in my opinion.
Is the the Nicene to post Nicene church father book collection I see first and second edition all volumes
When Moses commanded the Israelites to eat passover in Exodus 12, wasn’t it only the first time that there was any sacrificial effect? Lutherans agree on that point, but doesn’t it also say in Exodus chapter 12 that subsequent passovers are a memorial? Same as Jesus says “do this in remembrance of me?” Why would you need to remember Christ if you’re physically touching Him?
Jesus was pointing to the passover and saying “Hey, Jewish apostles who have been eating this pierced matza and drinking this cup all your lives, this is about me. I am the sacrificial lamb that saves you from death. This is my body and this is my blood, shed for you.” They already knew the bread and cup symbolized suffering and deliverance from death. So Jesus is saying passover is a prophecy and symbol of His sacrifice. Was there “real presence” in the passover prior to Jesus? Of course not. Of course it’s all spiritual too. Every step of obedience you take unites you spiritually with Jesus.
The Eucharist is both a memorial *and* a physical eating of Christ's flesh and blood.
Mister Trumpet
Spiritual eating? Yes. Actual eating? No.
@@IAmisMaster Well there we disagree.
@Progger_Frogger
Are you Sola Scriptura? And Sola Fide?
@@johnfitzgeraldkennedy5265
Yes.
I enjoy your videos but would point out it is quite inaccurate to say Calvin's position was essentially close to, or the same as Zwingli's
If they were so close why would Calvin refer to those who held to Zwingli's position as "hypocrites" in his commentary on 1 Peter?
Why would Calvin have written that he would take "every opportunity to oppose" Zwingli on his position on the Eucharist if they were "so close?"
Why would Calvin sign and agree to the Augsburg Confession to include regarding the Lord's Supper?
Why would 19th Century American Presbyterians respond to Philip Schaff and John W Nevin attempting to revive the real understanding of Calvin';s position on the Eucharist as potential "heretics" or as Charles Hodge responded to them as “an uncongenial foreign element” in Calvin’s sacramental theology, probably derived from Calvin’s overly familiar relations with the Lutherans?
I think given your solid work and the pedestal you have here you could do better in understanding Calvin's position before making such assertions.
"“The fact is, and it is useful to recognize this in the first place, that there is nothing in the Augsburg Confession which is not in agreement with our own teaching”
-John Calvin
It doesn't add up......
Peace of Christ
Thanks for the videos. They are all very appreciated. Dr. Cooper, i don't know if you have a video explaining this or not, but im having a difficult time understanding why the need for "extra" grace and forgiveness of sins through the sacraments. If i believe that Christ died for all my sins: past, present and future, then why would more forgiveness be needed? I ask Jesus to daily renew my mind and heart to be more like Him, and am constantly confessing my sins to Him. Doesnt belief alone as in faith and grace alone blot out my sin constantly? Wouldn't taking a sacrament for forgiveness of sins be a work? I know that question is asked a ton but i believe that it IS Christ's blood shed on the cross that accomplishes the atonement. St. Paul is told that Christ's grace is sufficient. I have to believe that what Jesus did on the cross for me was sufficient. "It is finished". No more works for heaven. Just belief by faith in His grace. Sorry, this is long. Im truly trying to work out the purpose of "more" forgiveness and grace. Thanks again.
“the flesh and blood of Christ feed our souls just as bread and wine maintain and support our corporeal life. For there would be no aptitude in the sign, did not our souls find their nourishment in Christ. This could not be, did not Christ truly form one with us, and refresh us by the eating of his flesh, and the drinking of his blood. But though it seems an incredible thing that the flesh of Christ, while at such a distance from us in respect of place, should be food to us, let us remember how far the secret virtue of the Holy Spirit surpasses all our conceptions, and how foolish it is to wish to measure its immensity by our feeble capacity. Therefore, what our mind does not comprehend let faith conceive-viz. that the Spirit truly unites things separated by space. That sacred communion of flesh and blood by which Christ transfuses his life into us, just as if it penetrated our bones and marrow, he testifies and seals in the Supper, and that not by presenting a vain or empty sign, but by there exerting an efficacy of the Spirit by which he fulfils what he promises. And truly the thing there signified he exhibits and offers to all who sit down at that spiritual feast, although it is beneficially received by believers only who receive this great benefit with true faith and heartfelt gratitude. For this reason the apostle said, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of
the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ”? (1 Cor. 10:16.) There is no ground to object that the expression is figurative, and gives the sign the name of the thing signified. I admit, indeed, that the breaking of bread is a symbol, not the reality. But this being admitted, we duly infer from the exhibition of the symbol that the thing itself is exhibited. For unless we would charge God with deceit, we will never presume to say that he holds forth an empty symbol. Therefore, if by the breaking of bread the Lord truly represents the partaking of his body, there ought to be no doubt whatever that he truly exhibits and performs it.”
-Calvin in his institutes. Doesn’t this just say the Spirit brings the body and blood of Christ to us? He seems adamant that we are truly being nourished by Christ’s body and blood. It also doesn’t seem like he says we go to heaven instead of Christ coming to us. We are the ones being fed, right?
Yes we call the bread and wine/juice the body and blood of Christ.
Even when they had the first supper , remember Christ broke the bread and it was a symbol of what would happen on the cross, and His shed blood = the wine/juice . And He told the disciples and us today, DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME. In remembrance of what happened on the cross and not just His crucifixion
But why His crucifixion. That it took a perfect lamb to be sacrificed and His shed blood to pay for the chosen sin of mankind.
So even then it still was symbolic of what would happen in a few hours . And to day the bread is symbolic of Christ body broken on the cross and the wine/juice is symbolic of His shed blood .
There is no physical transformation and what spiritual transformation occurs?
As God’s saints we are indwelled with God’s Holy Spirit as a promised guarantee of what is yet to come. So when we celebrate communion it is a real wafer or bread and yes it is real wine or juice symbolic of what Christ did for mankind in reality.
Christ was bodily, locally, and visibly present at the table, and was not injured, broken, dead, but alive. Christ took the bread, broke and gave it, and the disciples ate the given bread. Christ said of this bread, "This is My body," so that the word THIS cannot refer to anything else but the bread only.
Jesus: This [bread] is my body.
ginosko 23: This bread is your bread.
Jesus: This [bread] is my body.
ginosko 23: But you're not injured.
Jesus: This [bread] is my body.
Sorry, but you lost me there, probably because you sound very popish , due exegete yourself and lets due this according to the text.
Christ says, “This is My body.” A plain person will first of all be able to see that the word is does not mean to change or to become, but that in this context it means as much as to say “Christs broken body,” that is, His suffering and death. This manner of speech is very common in social conversation, in Scripture, in speech unrelated to the sacraments, and in the sacraments. One can say of a painting: “This is the king of England, and that is the king of France.” The bride says about her engagement ring: “This is my fidelity.” Everyone knows that in such cases the word IS implies that this is the image or the likeness of this king, and that this is the token and the seal which the bridegroom has given as a confirmation of his fidelity. This manner of speech is equally common in Holy Writ. We read there as follows: “The seven good kine are seven years” (Gen 41:26); “The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; the enemy ... is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels” (Matt 13:38-39) No one is so foolish as to take the word is in its literal sense; the most simple person would be able to see that it means as much as to say it signifies. The word is is even understood to mean signifies relative to the other sacraments. This was true for the Passover, “It is the Lords passover” (Exod 12:11). Passover means to pass by. It signified the passing by of the angel who killed all the firstborn in the land of Egypt. We have the same expression relative to circumcision, “This is My covenant” (Gen 17:10). It is irrefutable that the word this refers to circumcision, and that it is not the covenant itself. Rather, it means as much as to say, “This is a sign of the covenant”-it signifies the covenant. We have the same manner of speech when saying, “this is My covenant,” or “this is My body.” What more can be said my friend your truly not understanding the text.
@@ginosko2328 The seven good cows in the dream are seven good years, as Joseph was inspired to explain. The bread that we break, is a communion of the body of Christ, as Paul was inspired to explain.
The other parables you mentioned were later interpreted to be parables by scripture. Exegesis is the interpretation of scripture according to scripture. Your first several sentences suggest we should interpret scripture according to modern manner of speaking.
This was true for the Passover, “It is the Lords passover” (Exod 12:11). Passover means to pass by. It signified the passing by of the angel who killed all the firstborn in the land of Egypt. We have the same expression relative to circumcision, “This is My covenant” (Gen 17:10). It is irrefutable that the word this refers to circumcision, and that it is not the covenant itself. Rather, it means as much as to say, “This is a sign of the covenant”-it signifies the covenant. We have the same manner of speech when saying, “this is My covenant,” or “this is My body.” What more can be said my friend your truly not understanding the text. We have the same expression relative to circumcision, “This is My covenant” (Gen 17:10). It is irrefutable that the word this refers to circumcision, and that it is not the covenant itself. Rather, it means as much as to say, “This is a sign of the covenant”-it signifies the covenant. We have the same manner of speech when saying, “this is My covenant,” or “this is My body.”
@@ginosko2328 The reason circumcision is a sign of the covenant is because scripture says directly, "You shall be circumcised by cutting the foreskin off your flesh. It will be a *sign of the covenant* between me and you." Scripture clearly interprets itself. Paul interprets "This is my body." saying, "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ?"
Moreover, circumcision is not only a sign. "The uncircumcised male who is not circumcised by removing the foreskin from his flesh, that person must be cut off from his people. He has broken my covenant." No matter how otherwise Kosher a boy was, he was not an Israelite without circumcision. There was no covenant without it.
The bible is 100% clear. The first Lords Supper was held before the death of Christ. It's blasphemy to say the Last Supper was that transubstantiation mode.
("This is My Body, this is my Blood") seems pretty clear to me.... Of course it's a real presence.... How can anyone Protestant or Catholic deny this???? :(
Catholic doesnt deny it. It is pretty clear taught by the church.
In the same way you would deny a balloon is 'really' my head if I offer it to you saying 'this is my head'.
@@LeoRegum but you're just a person. Christ is the son of God. What you have just said is extremely blasphemous.
@@LeoRegum also keep in mind that Christ literally transformed the substance of just mere water into actual wine without any aging process and he did it immediately that is also an example of complete and total substance change. If he can do it with water and turn it into wine, then he can most certainly do it with bread and wine and turn it into his blood and body. In loose translation you have no Faith at all.
@@bradleyhoyt3188 Are you confident your ignorant name-calling will be looked kindly upon on the Day you answer for your words?
When u said " i think it is complicated" what comes to my mind is, " yes! You protestants make it confusing and complicated. What calvin says and luther saiys is both what catholic teaching in a different way of explanation of course...
Rod Rosenbladt did a solid series on Chemnitz’s “The Two Natures in Christ” that’s on Vimeo.
It’s really good too. God Bless Rosenbladt and Lutheranism
Thanks!
@Wil Welch
God bless Lutheranism??? Why?
@@johnfitzgeraldkennedy5265 , it's true. I don't think it's perfect in its theology, but I think that it and classical Anglicanism get what Christianity is more lucidly than any of the other groups within Christianity.
@Bob Taylor
Thank you for answering! Do you stand with the reformers? If so, which ones? I just don’t think that classical Anglicanism or Lutheranism are good, or I should say were good, at all. Because where did they originate from? Who did they originate from? Do you stand with them?
Cranmer and Calvin shared the same view. You can read Cranmer's book on the Eucharist, "The Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ". 6:16 Cranmer mentioned this quote too.
@@johnalbent Many Anglicans these days seem to be Romanists without the Pope.
Regardless of whether there is or there is not a difference between Zwingli and Calvin, they are both wrong. Period. Calvinists should stop piggybacking on Luther, he didn't, and wouldn't now, have fellowship with them because of their false teachings.
We are all in Christ as a believer. So, why do you have to make a distinction for the Lord's Supper. Why is it so important for you to have body and blood be real physical body and blood to you? Why is it so important to believe that you're drinking and eating Jesus's real blood and body rather than just remembering the sacrifice Jesus did on the cross (which is the ultimate goal)? Do you not see the gruesomeness of this act of trying to make "remember me" to be eating Jesus's real flesh and blood? If that night Jesus wanted his disciples to eat and drink his real body and blood why would he use wine and bread? He could've given them real flesh and blood!
It is important for us to believe in the Real Presence because it was important enough for Christ to institute the sacrament and for Paul to defend it (1 Cor 11). As for asking why Christ chose to use bread and wine as the vehicle for this, contrary to how you would do it........!
John chapter 6. Jesus realized it was gruesome to the listeners, but He did not back down on the Truth about it when He saw many disciples leaving Him. That is why, because it matters to Christ that we eat and drink His body and blood.
If you think about it there are five views of the Lord's Supper. Or you could boil that down to three if you lump Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Lutheran together. But if you don't lump them together you have those three views and a Calvin and Zwingli view which makes five.
Jason Nota The RCC view is that the eucharist is the sacrifice of Jesus and that the bread and wine are completely changed to Jesus's body and blood. Luther tought that Jesus's body and blood are physicality present but leaves open how. Jesus's sacrifice was once for all.
True. I was just thinking about the presence of the body and blood. But us Lutherans believe body, blood, bread, wine are all there. And I'm not sure about EO except it a mystery as they say.
@@jnota1 I don't know what the various Orthodox churches believe either. Except that they pray to Mary.
@@markhorton3994 We believe it' It's made into the body and blood of Christ we don't try to categorize it it's a holy mystery needs no explanation.
As a pathologist and blood bank director - the units of blood and blood constituents in a hospital blood bank are alive (if they were not, they would not function in the recipient). Yet they are physically separate from the still-living donor. This is reminiscent of 19th century objections to the Earth being only 6,000 years old, instead of the 4.5 billion years, as geology clearly demonstrates. It took fifty years before science caught up to theology, in the form of relativity. An astronaut traveling to and from a star 100 light years away at 99.99% of the speed of light ages only a few days (speed slows the passage of time in the vehicle); he returns to an Earth that has aged 200 years. A photograph can show him and the great-great-grandson of the engineer who sent him standing together - an event with two different allotments of time. Science also caught up when the Steady State theory - the universe is infinite and has always existed - of the 1970's fell to the then ridiculed Big Bang concept - the universe has a beginning and is finite (and does not simply oscillate, as later suggested by diehard opponents - its expansion is accelerating). The only thing unbelievers retain through this all is a stubborn conviction there is nothing "out there." As a Christian, I wish my faith were as unshakable.
At least learn how to pronounce his name.
Please slow down, you speak way to fast.
I disagree.
We catholics believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. And we believe also that the bread and wine have to be changed in order to that Presence to be real, because nothing can be at the same time bread and body of Christ, or wine and blood of Christ. And Christ didn't say "this bread is my Body", but "this is my Body".
@Saxon Murray Aquinas says that divine Omnipotence is the power to do anything that doesn't imply contradiction. God is not less Omnipotent because he cannot not be God, not be Saint, not be Good, not be Omnipotent, be created, have a beginning. All those things imply contradiction if predicated of God. Precisely, in Jesus Christ we must distinguish the Divine nature and the human nature, and profess the unity of Person, in order to avoid a contradiction: He is Infinite and finite, He cannot die, and He dies, but with respect to different things: the Divine nature, the human nature.
Well actually 1 Cor. 10:16-17 really sounds very similar to "This bread is My body"
In all of the videos I have watched of yours since last year, I have always been curious about the row of same colored books in your shelf. LOL
What are they, if I may know?
Those are the Ante Nicene and Nicene Fathers volumes from Hendrickson.
No, Jordan; Zwingli was correct... most correct... more than Calvin and esp. Luther!
Jesus: This is my body.
Luther: Amen, Lord. This is your body.
Zwingli: This is not his body.
34Packardphaeton: Zwingli is right to disagree with Jesus and Luther.
Jesus is present via the Holy Spirit.