Is Protestantism Heresy? Pt. 2 - The Eucharist | Collision w/ Jeff Durbin
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 10. 2023
- This is a portion of our show Collision. In the full episode Jeff responds to 5 common claims of Roman Catholics. We look at Mary, Sola Scriptura, The Pope and more. This is part 2 where we address the Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist and Transubstantiation. Collision is exclusively available on All-Access at apologiastudios.com/shows/col.... To watch the full Hour long response follow the link and check it out.
Be sure to like, share, and comment on this video.
You can get more at apologiastudios.com :
You can partner with us by signing up for All Access. When you do you make everything we do possible and you also get exclusive content like Collision, The Aftershow, Ask Me Anything w/ Jeff Durbin and The Academy, etc. You can also sign up for a free account to receive access to Bahnsen U. We are re-mastering all the audio and video from the Greg L. Bahnsen PH.D catalogue of resources. This is a seminary education at the highest level for free.
#ApologiaStudios
Follow us on social media here:
Facebook: / apologiastudios
Instagram: apologiastu...
Check out our online store here:
shop.apologiastudios.com/ - Zábava
To watch the full response and to better equipped to respond to worldview issues like this visit apologiastudios.com/shows/collision and join All-Access today! Lots of powerful and informative content for our partners just like you!
Is Protestantism heresy? Yes, sola scriptura is the heresy that begets all heresy’s.
@bottomoftherabbithole reader Paul Trinca did a response to this coming from an Orthodox perspective for anyone who is interested! Already has 5,000 views!
@@mannss42884🙏☦️
czcams.com/video/OTz2ZpaXcKs/video.htmlsi=d3NaW_xL9zLGCUBq
Hey, my dear Apologia, please consider making a response to this response in which an Orthodox makes a very kind invitiation to Jeff for discussion about communion.
czcams.com/video/OTz2ZpaXcKs/video.htmlsi=ouSe-WFte3jGrzTI
Hi Jeff, perhaps you'd like to respond to the Orthodox Response?
czcams.com/video/OTz2ZpaXcKs/video.htmlsi=lLnHLIrkEn8cfOJE
I really enjoy Jeff’s clarity… bless his work …from Scotland
Another great presentation brother.
Does anyone know what sermon Jeff is referencing in the beginning that White did on the Eucharist? I can only find one from 4 years ago. Thanks!
What’s wrong with doctrinal development? Doesn’t doctrine develop as a result of controversy in the church which propels us into better understanding?
I said this on this thread somewhere also.
Can’t have development if you affirm papal infallibility. Or make claims of abject authority due to historic consistency/reliability.
The essence of Protestant epistemology is that any developments in doctrine must not contradict prior revelation from God. In other words, all doctrine is reformable in light of holy scripture. From what little I know of Roman Catholicism, the Pope dictates doctrine by his own authority as the spiritual successor of St. Peter, and that doctrine is irreformable. Even if it’s not only extra-biblical but unbiblical.
@@andrewcroce8177is the doctrine of the Trinity reformable based on a new reading of holy scripture?
@andrewcroce8177 The Pope doesn't dictate doctrine, he defines it and does not do so very often. Dictation makes it sound like he some guy jumping up and down making stuff up lol
My favorite quote from St. Augustine: “The very first heresy was formulated when men said: “this saying is hard and who can bear it [Jn 6:60]?” {Enarr. 1, 23 on Ps. 54; on p.66}
The scoffers took him literally - which is what Catholics do.
But Jesus clarified with the 12 “I was speaking not of flesh and blood, but of spirit and truth.”
@@Me-hf4ii What is it with Protestants that they make stuff up, and say it's from the Bible (like Durbin does all of the time)? Jesus didn't say that at all. He said in verse 63: "It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Jesus is contrasting the 2 ways that one can believe what he tells them. They can either be offended by how their "flesh" hears him, or believe him by how their "spirit" hears him. The previous verses are, "But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, 'Does this offend you? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?'" In other words, if you can't believe that you have to eat his flesh, then you also can't believe that he will ascend into Heaven.
Even so, your personal interpretation doesn't debunk how Augustine considered your position to be heretical.
@@Me-hf4ii Why not TRUST Jesus: THIS IS MY BODY??
Try this:
1. Read the bread of life discourse (Jn 6 and the 1st para of Jn 7)
2. Make two columns on paper
Column 1 - those who took him speaking symbolically only
Column 2 - those who took him speaking literally
3. What do you find? Be honest.
4. Cite someone, anyone in the first 1000+ years who taught your interpretation of scripture, some one like
St Ignatius of Antioch (a disciple of St John)
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
“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.” First Apology, 66 (A.D. 110-165).
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).
St Athanasius (from whom we have the very first canon of the New Testament exactly as in your bible... 27 writings)
“You will see the Levites bringing the loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made, it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wonderous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ…When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body.” Sermon to the Newly Baptized, PG 26, 1325 (ante A.D. 373).
@@richardgreene6810 Jesus fed the 5,000 (John 6:1-13). The next day, the same multitudes continued to follow Him, seeking another meal. Jesus pointed out their short-sightedness: they were only seeking physical bread, but there was something more important: “Food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you” (verse 27). At this point, Jesus attempts to turn their perspective away from physical sustenance to their true need, which was spiritual.
This contrast between physical food and spiritual food sets the stage for Jesus’ statement that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Jesus explains that it is not physical bread that the world needs, but spiritual bread. Jesus three times identifies Himself as that spiritual bread (John 6:35, 48, 51). And twice He emphasizes faith (a spiritual action) as the key to salvation: “My Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life” (verse 40); and “Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life” (verse 47).
Jesus then compares and contrasts Himself to the manna that Israel had eaten in the time of Moses: “Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die” (John 6:49-50). Like manna, Jesus came down from heaven; and, like manna, Jesus gives life. Unlike manna, the life Jesus gives lasts for eternity (verse 58). In this way, Jesus is greater than Moses (see Hebrews 3:3).
Having established His metaphor (and the fact that He is speaking of faith in Him), Jesus presses the symbolism even further: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will live forever; and this bread, which I will offer so the world may live, is my flesh. . . . I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you. But anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life. . . . My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. . . . Anyone who feeds on me will live because of me”
@bottomoftherabbithole Reader Paul Trinca did an Orthodox response to this for anyone who is interested in hearing the other side from an Orthodox perspective!
The true church? Explain what apostles taught Hesychasm, controlled breathing and staring at the belly to see the uncreated light that was seen at the transfiguration. The EO is not apostolic.
Paul Trincas response is nothing more than EO propaganda.
@tricord2939 if you're not willing to have an open and honest discussion about Church History you're just not worth talking to. Please watch his video. Protestants aren't converting to Orthodoxy in droves for no reason.
1 Corinthians 7:7-8 actually.
@@mannss42884 Not sure you understand the question, this is not it. 1 Corinthians 7:7-8 [7] “I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. [8] To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am.”
How To Be Christian is gonna have a field day with this one lol
I was just thinking the same thing, lol
But How to Be Christian isn't a serious channel.....
@@emmaus5975 yes it is. And its loaded with humour too.
@CanadaEhAPinoyVlog
Eh. There is no accounting for people's tastes...or in this case sense of humor(?). I wouldn't call scoffing, question begging, and entitlement serious, but to each his own.
@@emmaus5975You should look at his videos about Protestantism.
Very well explained. Thanks so much. Blessings.
St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.)
I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I DESIRE HIS BLOOD, which is love incorruptible. (Letter to the Romans 7:3)
Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery… (Letter to the Philadelphians 4:1)
They [i.e. the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrnians 7:1)
You are missing the context of St. Ignatius, have you actually read the letters? He is not promulgating romes Eucharist.
@@timrosen1618 Even after reading that you still deny what Ignatius is saying?
@@cooldude71120 No, you are reading out of context. There is nothing about transubstantiation. Try studying the letter.
@@cooldude71120 Furthermore, many scholars believe all of the letters attributed to Ignatius are forgeries.
@@cooldude71120 There are hints in this letter itself as to what he arguing, but you have to study.
Thanks, Jeff bless you & your family ministry,
Who ordained Jeff a Pastor? How were pastors ordained in the Bible? Did they ordained themselves?
No. They didn't. They had to have valid apostolic succession. Jeff doesn't have that. Hence, I hate to break it to you, he isn't a valid pastor.
@@dman7668 and yet he knows the Bible more than the popes do. You have no claim on who is and isn't a valid pastor. Please provide scripture to back up your claims.
@@Tayman47 Please provide scripture showing that you become a pastor by calling yourself one. Back it up with scripture please.
@@dman7668 whoops that’s not how the burden of proof works and that’s a strawman. He doesn’t just call himself one. Please respond with your scripture proof of your claim.
Good evening to you all . Your sister in Christ in Michigan
Thank you. I've got so much questions about Catholicism. I'm a born Catholic and as I read the bible and watch your video i have more questions and my Catholic faith😢
read what God has said in hebrews 10, this is the main reason i will never participate in a mass, even though i am a Godparent to my roman catholic friends child
lol just actually watched the video. jeff touches on that topic
Please do your research. Start here and most of your questions will be answers youtube.com/@catholiccom?si=ddmewRpOdnKH7L57
Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are the only group preserving the totality of the faith.
Here’s another excellent channel in easy to digest format to teach you about your Catholic faith youtube.com/@HowToBeChristian?si=rTHtd-g6tFmojrAK
Dont let this man deceive you brother. If you want clarity on catholic teaching go to Catholic sources! Almost everything Jeff preaches is a lie and a misinterpretation
So why did some of Jesus’s followers abandon him after this teaching, if all Jesus meant by eating his flesh and drinking his blood was coming to him and believing in him? These were people who had left everything to follow him. They had already come to him and believed in him.
Very good question, Aaron. Jesus' teaching was not merely symbolic, but true in a literal sense. We must eat his flesh to have eternal life.
That is a complete and total strawman. It's not for people that were just coming to Him. Jesus said to do this in remembrance of Him. We are to constantly remind ourselves of the covenant. I don't need to know whether this dishonesty is intentional or not, but it shows that you don't really have a leg to stand on. If this dogma of transubstantiation is blatantly false, which it is, you are committing idolatry. If it is true, which it isn't, then you sin every time you have the eucharist because you're drinking blood.
@@Christ__is__King wrong.
@@NoLongerNeedThis false equivocation - partaking in the Lord's Supper in remembrance of Him does not equal to 'purely symbolic'. I could easily say to you as a Catholic, I partake in the Eucharist in remembrance of Jesus, but I also believe that it is the real presence too. No contradiction whatsoever.
@@manicchristian why is it a hard teaching then?
Praying for everyone here who needs help recognizing the true presence. It requires an open heart and mind.
Jeff, go deeper! Orthodox Christianity is all!
The eucharist is always given to all members of the Church, including infants who are baptized and confirmed. It is always given in both forms-bread and wine. It is strictly understood as being the real presence of Christ, His true Body and Blood mystically present in the bread and wine which are offered to the Father in his name and consecrated by the divine Spirit of God.
In the history of Christian thought, various ways were developed to try to explain how the bread and the wine become the Body and Blood of Christ in the eucharistic liturgy. Quite unfortunately, these explanations often became too rationalistic and too closely connected with certain human philosophies.
One of the most unfortunate developments took place when men began to debate the reality of Christ’s Body and Blood in the eucharist. While some said that the eucharistic gifts of bread and wine were the real Body and Blood of Christ, others said that the gifts were not real, but merely the symbolic or mystical presence of the Body and Blood. The tragedy in both of these approaches is that what is real came to be opposed to what is symbolic or mystical.
The Orthodox Church denies the doctrine that the Body and the Blood of the eucharist are merely intellectual or psychological symbols of Christ’s Body and Blood. If this doctrine were true, when the liturgy is celebrated and holy communion is given, the people would be called merely to think about Jesus and to commune with him “in their hearts.” In this way, the eucharist would be reduced to a simple memorial meal of the Lord’s last supper, and the union with God through its reception would come only on the level of thought or psychological recollection.
On the other hand, however, the Orthodox tradition does use the term “symbols” for the eucharistic gifts. It calls, the service a “mystery” and the sacrifice of the liturgy a “spiritual and bloodless sacrifice.” These terms are used by the holy fathers and the liturgy itself.
The Orthodox Church uses such expressions because in Orthodoxy what is real is not opposed to what is symbolical or mystical or spiritual. On the contrary! In the Orthodox view, all of reality-the world and man himself-is real to the extent that it is symbolical and mystical, to the extent that reality itself must reveal and manifest God to us. Thus, the eucharist in the Orthodox Church is understood to be the genuine Body and Blood of Christ precisely because bread and wine are the mysteries and symbols of God’s true and genuine presence and manifestation to us in Christ. Thus, by eating and drinking the bread and wine which are mystically consecrated by the Holy Spirit, we have genuine communion with God through Christ who is himself “the bread of life” (Jn 6.34, 41).
I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh (Jn 6.51).
Thus, the bread of the eucharist is Christ’s flesh, and Christ’s flesh is the eucharistic bread. The two are brought together into one. The word “symbolical” in Orthodox terminology means exactly this: “to bring together into one.”
theorthodoxfaith.essentialbeliefs.org/worship/the-sacraments/holy-eucharist
Wonderful explanation ☦️
Since Christ is the bread of life, its Christ saying that He brings you to eternal life. Jesus is the bread of life, so eating the bread at eucharist is remembrance ceremony of your conversion and the acceptance of the Gospel(good news), which is when you put your faith in Christ and His sacrifice, your sins are forgiven and gain eternal life. Eating a bread wafer doesn't save you, the bread of life who is Jesus Christ saves you through His sacrifice and your faith in Him.
"If you do not eat my body and drink my blood, you have no life in you." Means if you don't have true faith in Christ, you will be damned. It's simple as that. God doesn't want you to cannibalize him, its called a metaphor.
@@eye1dry138
What is curious is that what you call a 'metaphor' was NEVER understood in such semantic and forensic terms until the 16th century.
But every single Orthodox Christian was wrong before a revolt against latin heresies in medieval Europe set things aright?
@strugglingathome consuming the bread of life means to have faith in Jesus Christ for salvation. If you are ACTUALLY consuming Jesus flesh and blood during every eucharist, you are re-sacrificing Jesus to cleanse your sins. Theologically it's incoherent because Jesus died once and for all mankind, you dont get to resacrifice Jesus every week. If you turn to Christ your sins are forgiven, you dont get dirty and need to get cleaned up again by eating Jesus. If anyone historically disagrees with that, thats their bad theology and incoherent understanding of what Jesus did, its not my problem.
@@eye1dry138 Interesting how you think St. Paul, the apostles, and the early Church fathers who knew the apostles, had bad theology, and that your theology is better and more true than theirs.
Where was this Church teaching a symbolic lords supper in the early Church? Who were it's bishops?
Where are their churches today?
Where do we find the bible being interpreted the way Jeff is doing right now 1000yrs ago? Can anybody show me this Christian interpretation of the Sacrament of the Eucharist prior to the reformation?
Anybody?
@@manicchristian Catholics grant it is a symbol, however the Eucharist is not merely a symbol. When the Fathers use symbolic language they refer to the Eucharist not changing in form (accidents) but that the substance is changed into the Body and Blood of Christ.
St. Augustine once said “we don’t sin by worshipping the Eucharist, we sin by not worshipping the Eucharist”. He wouldn’t say this about a mere symbol.
St. Augustine:
“What you see is the bread and the chalice . . . But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice the Blood of Christ.”
St. Justin Martyr
“And this food is called among us Eucharistia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined.
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 by the Word of God, had both 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.”
@@manicchristianPatristics utilizing the term symbol ≠ the Protestant interpretation of memorialism/symbolism. That’s a textbook word concept fallacy.
What a blessing you are. God put you in my news feed he knew I needed to hear this truth that I’ve always known. My husband has converted to Catholicism & it’s breaking my heart. When we Married 18 years ago he was not a Catholic & this is causing so much strife in our Marriage. I feel heart & betrayed by him & he believes that anyone who does not believe in Catholic doctrine is being lied to. And that they are nothing but Catholic Haters . I am a Protestant & will have my believers Baptized 6/16/24 🙏🏻 I doubt that he will come to witness this wonderful event for me.
Honey, your husband is right.... I beg you to do some research.... Listen to Father Chris Alar, Explaining the Faith and you will see. How can all Christians for the first 1500 years be wrong? Look up Eucharistic Miracles and tell me that was symbolic. That is what Satan wants you to believe. He is trying to take all of the graces Jesus left for us! Don't receive the Eucharist... Don't baptize the babies.... Don't go to Mass and do this in rememberance of Him.... Your husband is right.
Jeff, God bless you brother. Would you ever consider debating Sam Shamoun on this and Mariology?
Sam the heretic nope he wouldn’t waste his time.
@JR0G I've watched his debates and interactions with Mormons, Jw's, atheists, etc. What makes Sam any different? If anything, At least Sam defends the deity of Christ. He needs to be corrected publicly. Just my opinion
@@JR0GSam would love to destroy Calvinism but Mr. durbin wouldn't debate him or someone like Jay Dyer
@@TheTrueMendoza I think it's not good to assume we know people's minds. Whether they debate or not, it's their decision to make.
I’m not sure Jeff fully understand what the Catholic teaches and there’s enough errors in Jeff’s video on James 2. Here’s a video that addresses Jeff from a Catholic czcams.com/video/zNx0P0b-xmE/video.htmlsi=HZPCDBuMwaywSNwS
Jeff seems to have a problem with Jesus’ timing of things, saying that John Chapter 6 isn’t about the Eucharist since it was before the Last Supper. But he doesn’t seem to have a problem with the disciples having eternal life before Jesus was even crucified. Jeff says that they’ve eaten, and have eternal life because they simply looked and believed. I don’t know about you, but I think the Bible says that Jesus has to be crucified and risen from the dead before people can have eternal life.
The Bread of Life Discourse is simply a milestone in the doctrine of the Eucharist. The first milestone is that we learn of the archetype of Jesus in the bread with the manna falling from Heaven. We then learn that Jesus comes from Bethlehem (the land of bread). The Bread of Life Discourse is where Jesus reveals to us the details of what the Eucharist is. The next milestone is we understand the mode of eating and drinking Jesus’ flesh and blood in the Last Supper. Finally, we come to see the necessity of having Jesus in the bread with the account of the disciples on the road to Road to Emmaus.
Did the disciples not believe in their Messiah? Did not Abraham?
I believe that the Apostle Paul did not write the Greek word 'thusia/thysia' but rather 'anamnesis' in 1 Corinthians chapter 11. And in verse 26 the Apostle Paul said ' For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come' This means that we do this in an act of remembrance of Him.
Help
I’m a protestant buy learning more about Catholicism and orthodoxy makes me more confused as to what is the truth.
I don’t know what to do
What must we do? Jesus didn't say 'only' believe. He also said later in John 6 that if you not eat the flesh or drink the blood you have no life in me.
You didn’t listen to this then
Jesus did not say “or”, Jesus said “And”
Considering He said “And”, why did the (R) Catholic Church withhold the cup from the laity for hundreds of years?
Please don’t say we can Drink bread.
The hole chapter is Jesus telling us that believing is eating and drinking. You need context.
Guys, it's really that simple:
1) Jesus tells us that the one who believes has eternal life (notice He doesn't say all you have to do is believe and nothing else)
2) Jesus said He will raise up whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood
3) Jesus said Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you
It's a both/and scenario. Yes believing in Jesus is important, but it is clear that eating His flesh and drinking His blood is just as important - otherwise Jesus wouldn't say that we have no life in us if we didn't do so.
If you say that believing is eating and drinking, please show me which passage Jesus makes that distinction, if it really were that easy, surely many would not have walked away if it was purely just symbolic.
@@EatMyKos if that proposition is accurate, why did the (R) Catholic Church withhold the cup from the laity for hundreds of years?
Did these believers not have life in them?
Here is another thought I had about why I rejected what Jeff is saying. Bare with me foks and riddle me this:
If the Jewish Passover meal was really just a forshadowing for Jesus, then why did Christ replace the symbol of an actual lamb you EAT during the sadyr meal, with another symbol you eat.
Think about the redundence of replacing a symbol of Jesus in the sadyr passover, with just another other symbol. 😮
What would the point of that be? That would be redundant and therefore pointless. So that tells me right there, when Jesus holds up the bread and ssys this is my body, there must be something different happening here.
The church fathers knew this and protestantism rejects it, but they cant really explain why Jesus just swaps symbols out. It makes no sense.
Amen! John 6:48-51 I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
If the Israelites ate the manna from heaven which was supernatural bread, then how much more will the true flesh of Christ give life to those who believe today. Imagine going from the manna being supernatural bread, to symbolic food in the new covenant. Makes no sense, basically have to admit it's a downgrade from the OT bread.
@@manicchristian The Church of Jeff is following man-made error. Heresy.
_“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.”_ Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202).
Is one sanctified in receiving the Church of Jeff's Lord's Supper?
“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.” Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202).
St IGNATIUS was a disciple of St John. The same St John taught by Jesus. The same who wrote the Gospel including the bread of life discourse.
“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.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).
ST ATHANASIUS
You need to read more of him including: _“You will see the Levites bringing the loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made, it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wonderous prayers [of the priest at Mass] have been recited, then _*_the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ….When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body.”_* Athanasius, Sermon to the Newly Baptized, PG 26, 1325 (ante A.D. 373).
"SYMBOLS"
ST CYPRIAN
Read him too. Don't just copy and paste
_“For because Christ bore us all, in that He also bore our sins, we see that in the water is understood the people, but in the wine is showed the blood of Christ…Thus, therefore, in consecrating the cup of the Lord [at Mass] , water alone cannot be offered, even as wine alone cannot be offered. For if any one offer wine only, the blood of Christ is dissociated from us; but if the water be alone, the people are dissociated from Christ; but when both are mingled, and are joined with one another by a close union, there is completed a spiritual and heavenly SACRAMENT. Thus the cup of the Lord is not indeed water alone, nor wine alone, unless each be mingled [AT MASS] with the other; just as, on the other hand, the body of the Lord cannot be flour alone or water alone, unless both should be united and joined together and compacted in the mass of one bread; in which very SACRAMENT our people are shown to be made one, so that in like manner as many grains, collected, and ground, and mixed together into one mass, make one bread; so in Christ, who is the heavenly bread, we may know that there is one body, with which our number is joined and united.”_ Cyprian, To Caeilius, Epistle 62(63):13 (A.D. 253).
Note: All sacraments are symbols, but NOT symbols (figures) ONLY of a greater spiritual reality.
God Bless you
Praise the lord 🙌 🙏 truth
C'mon dude really? This is a tall order taking on a Christian practice & teaching that has been held in the earliest Church, taught in the sacred text, the Didache & explicitly in the early Church...even your dude Luther held to the Eucharist..but of course many in Protest just completely miss it & impose that its strictly symbolic which was never the case, unless a Docetist. 1Cor 10:16 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? The Eucharist is not cannibalism. Rather, Jesus provides his very much alive and glorified body and blood in a sacramental manner, not as a mere human corpse given in a grotesque, three-dimensional way. As Justin Martyr writes a little farther on, “and what is spoken of as the blood of the grape, signifies that he who should appear would have blood, though not of the seed of man, but of the power of God” (First Apology 32). Indeed, the Eucharist is not the blood of a mere man, but that of the God-man who became flesh (John 1:14) and who thus has related divine power in offering his body and blood as salvific food. Justin Martyr: For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the word of God, had both 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. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, said, “This do in remembrance of me, this is my body”; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, he said, “This is my blood”; and gave it to them alone (First Apology, 66). Saint Irenaeus: For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity. Justin Martyr: For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the word of God, had both 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. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, said, “This do in remembrance of me, this is my body”; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, he said, “This is my blood”; and gave it to them alone (First Apology, 66).
Bible > anyone's opinions
🤷
St. Cyprian of Carthage (c. 200 - 258 A.D.)
And we ask that this Bread be given us daily, so that we who are in Christ and daily receive THE EUCHARIST AS THE FOOD OF SALVATION, may not, by falling into some more grievous sin and then in abstaining from communicating, be withheld from the heavenly Bread, and be separated from Christ's Body…
He Himself warns us, saying, "UNLESS YOU EAT THE FLESH OF THE SON OF MAN AND DRINK HIS BLOOD, YOU SHALL NOT HAVE LIFE IN YOU." Therefore do we ask that our Bread, WHICH IS CHRIST, be given to us daily, so that we who abide and live in Christ may not withdraw from His sanctification and from His Body. (The Lord's Prayer 18)
Also in the priest Melchisedech we see THE SACRAMENT OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE LORD prefigured…The order certainly is that which comes from his [Mel's] sacrifice and which comes down from it: because Mel was a priest of the Most High God; because he offered bread; and because he blessed Abraham. And who is more a priest of the Most High God than our Lord Jesus Christ, who, WHEN HE OFFERED SACRIFICE TO GOD THE FATHER, OFFERED THE VERY SAME WHICH MELCHISEDECH HAD OFFERED, NAMELY BREAD AND WINE, WHICH IS IN FACT HIS BODY AND BLOOD! (Letters 63:4)
If Christ Jesus, our Lord and God, is Himself the High Priest of God the Father; AND IF HE OFFERED HIMSELF AS A SACRIFICE TO THE FATHER; AND IF HE COMMANDED THAT THIS BE DONE IN COMMEMORATION OF HIMSELF -- then certainly the priest, who imitates that which Christ did, TRULY FUNCTIONS IN PLACE OF CHRIST. (Letters 63:14)
There is no sacerdotal priesthood in the NT.
@timrosen1618 I guess you're just going to ignore Jesus...
@@Christ__is__King No, I’m going to ignore Cyprian because he didn’t study the actual apostles teachings. There is no ambiguity is the words of Christ in John 6 or at the last supper/ Passover meal.
@@Christ__is__King John 16:7 [7] “Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.” Neither Jesus or the apostles taught that someone had to function in place of Jesus.
@@timrosen1618 you said there is no sacerdotal priesthood in the NT. That's literally what Jesus is.
Do you think your version of Christianity would be recognizable to Christians of the first few centuries?
You said that John 6 has no ambiguity. I agree. Do you eat his true flesh and drink his true blood?
If you're saying the body and blood in the Eucharist is not human you are saying Christ is not human. That's the Nestorian heresy.
Friendly reminder, this is only a 15min clip of the full 1hr video available on Apologia All-Access!
Thanks for letting us know, but 15 minutes of B.S. is about my limit.
@@1962mrpaul 😂😂😂
@@1962mrpaul now imagine actually paying money for over an hour of it.....
Yes
It’s very apparent that none of the Catholic apologists using copypasta in these comments have not actually watched the entire video.
And which copy paste church father is in the scriptures? Not one.
The Didache(c. 90 A.D.)
But concerning the Eucharist, after this fashion give ye thanks.
First, concerning the cup. We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine, David thy Son, which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus Christ thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.
And concerning the broken bread. We thank thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.
As this broken bread was once scattered on the mountains, and after it had been brought together became one, so may thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth unto thy kingdom; for thine is the glory, and the power, through Jesus Christ, for ever.
And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized into the name of the Lord, for of a truth the Lord hath said concerning this, Give not that which is holy unto dogs. ( 9:1-5)
On the Lord's Day of the Lord 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. For I am Great King," says the Lord, "and My name is wonderful among the Gentiles." (14:1-2)
I notice you omitted the part concerning "spiritual food".
I’m not sure why RCs think we need a central authority that claims to be the vicar of Christ to answer questions “infallibly” if there are disputes we would do what we are supposed to do, go to scripture to interpret scripture. If there is still disagreement, go to elders and teachers to get guidance. But they could still be wrong and there could still be disagreement. That’s why there are varying views between Protestants and that’s ok. Just like there is with Roman Catholics. We don’t have to agree on every single issue, to a T. Nobody does 100% on every issue. It’s just that RCs pretend they agree on everything, when they really don’t. Everyone has varying views to a degree, we just don’t lie and pretend that we don’t. It’s just not reality that every person will agree on every single issue. There is room for disagreement. The issues that matter, the foundational issues, Who God is, Who we are and how we have Peace with God, those answers are found in scripture with clear answers. Proper exegesis of the text solves 99% of the issues. The Gospel isn’t up for interpretation. The problem is when you adopt Rome’s stance, you get purgatory, Marian dogmas, indulgences, the papacy, transubstantiation, etc. and you are forced to believe these fairy tales or you are anathema. I’ll take agreement on the core issues with room for disagreement on periphery issues over gnostic dogmas I am forced to believe with zero evidence at all other than “oral tradition”. We have authorities in the Protestant world, our confessions of faith are the standard authorities that are subordinate to scripture, with some room for small differences. We just didn’t make the mistake of claiming one man and his decrees are binding law. We have traditions and confessions that state those beliefs and traditions, but scripture reigns supreme, not the church that reigns supreme. Rome has placed itself above scripture, if you can’t see that as an error, then I don’t know what to tell you.
Love it.
WHEN YOU WALK IN THE LIGHT , YOU LEAVE THE SHADOWS BEHIND . GOD BLESS YOU ALL !
That’s why I’m catholic 👍
@@brg1213 This whole video shows RCC is nothing but works bondage, may the triune, infallible, omniscient God bless you with faith in Him, not fallible man’s limited knowledge. Repent of your sin & trust in Jesus (Mark 1:15/Acts 3:19) before it's too late (Hebrews 9:27), eternity is a long time to be wrong (Revelation 20:15).
@@brg1213Why do you find it necessary to tell us that?
@@Nolongeraslavebecause Catholics talk about Catholicism and Christians talk about Christ!
@@brg1213 Keep working at it . GBY
The whole “earliest church practiced it” argument Catholics make does not hold any validity. If the earliest churches had it right, then explain all the letters to the first churches, which were written because of the FLAWS the early churches had
St Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of John - He believes in the true presence of the Eucharist. St Iraeneus a disciple of Polycarp, a disciple of John - He believes in the true presence of the Eucharist.
Syro-Malabar church in India founded by the apostle Thomas in 52 AD - believes in the Eucharist.
The early church is important because what the apostles have taught and passed on through tradition should hold a million times greater weight than what some new church claiming their own interpretation of the Bible is.
Pro Eucharist Answer from Catholic Answers: When we consider the language used by John, a literal interpretation-however disturbing-becomes even more obvious. In John 6:50-53 we encounter various forms of the Greek (the original language the NT was written in) verb phago, “eating.” However, after the Jews begin to express incredulity at the idea of eating Christ’s flesh, the language begins to intensify. In verse 54, John begins to use trogo instead of phago. Trogo is a decidedly more graphic term, meaning “to chew on” or to “gnaw on”-as when an animal is ripping apart its prey.
Also, another pro stance is that in the old testament the eating/drinking of blood was NOT allowed, see Leviticus 17. So here in the book of John he is telling the Jews to eat his blood?? That is why some followers left Him, because he meant it literally and was truly against Jewish teaching at the time. Leviticus 17 also says (I'm rewording a bit) the life force/spirit of a creature is the blood of that creature. Foreshadowing to when we eat the Eucharist at mass, where we take in Christ's life force because that is what he told us to do!
Read all of John 6 not just parts of it. Very convenient.
What potion of John 6 do you think was left out that is necessary for the topic?
any answer?
Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
Jesus didn't say say he meant it figuratively. To get his disciples back. Durbin did not explain that.
St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 140 - 202 A.D.)
…He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, "THIS IS MY BODY." The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, HE CONFESSED TO BE HIS BLOOD.
He taught THE NEW SACRIFICE OF THE NEW COVENANT, of which Malachi, one of the twelve prophets, had signified beforehand: [quotes Mal 1:10-11]. By these words He makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; BUT THAT IN EVERY PLACE SACRIFICE WILL BE OFFERED TO HIM, and indeed, a pure one; for His name is glorified among the Gentiles. (Against Heresies 4:17:5)
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… How can they say that the flesh which has been nourished BY THE BODY OF THE LORD AND BY HIS BLOOD gives way to corruption and does not partake of life? …For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, IS NO LONGER COMMON BREAD BUT THE EUCHARIST, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly… (Against Heresies 4:18:4-5)
If the BODY be not saved, then, in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His BLOOD; and neither is the cup of the EUCHARIST THE PARTAKING OF HIS BLOOD nor is the bread which we break THE PARTAKING OF HIS BODY…He has declared the cup, a part of creation, TO BE HIS OWN BLOOD, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, HE HAS ESTABLISHED AS HIS OWN BODY, from which He gives increase to our bodies.
When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, THE BODY OF CHRIST, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, WHICH IS ETERNAL LIFE -- flesh which is nourished BY THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD…receiving the Word of God, BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, WHICH IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST… (Against Heresies 5:2:2-3)
I wonder if Jeff or any other Protestant would be willing to frequent an adoration chapel on a regular basis
@EJ-gx9hl that would be wonderful. Surely being in the presence of Christ would convert many souls to His Heart.
@manicchristian a "Romanist" as you put it can agree with all these quotations. The Eucharist is symbolic, a representation, spiritual, and a figure. The point is that it is not MERELY any of those things.
Not the slam dunk you think it is.
And quoting Augustine is hilarious. He obviously believed in the real presence of the Eucharist. You are doing what you accuse others, cherry picking.
@@manicchristian what are Eucharistic miracles?
@manicchristian even the Catechism of the Catholic Church calls the Eucharist a "sign" and a "memorial". It's all of these things as well as the true body of Christ.
Augustine:
"This wholly redeemed city, the assembly and society of the saints, is offered to God as a universal sacrifice by the high priest who in the form of a slave went so far as to offer himself for us in his Passion, to make us the Body of so great a head. . . . Such is the sacrifice of Christians: "we who are many are one Body in Christ" The Church continues to reproduce this sacrifice in the sacrament of the altar so well-known to believers wherein it is evident to them that in what she offers she herself is offered."
What is the Sacrament of the altar that is being reproduced by the Church?
Have you actually talked with your Eastern Orthodox friends? I'm not sure you're representing their beliefs correctly. They may deny transubstantiation but they certainly don't deny the real presence of Christ's body and blood in Holy Communion.
Of course not. Because that would be crazy. The oldest Churches have held this belief since the start. So to say they are not teaching truth on this is hard to buy into.
Quick question if you could help me understand. You said catholics believe that the Eucharist cleanses them of their sins. The first question is if this is true, then why would they have you go to confession to get in a state of grace Before receiving communion communion.Must be a misunderstanding here of some kind?
He just like to lie about catholic teaching and go around talking like he’s saying the truth.
bc RCC is works bondage, not biblical grace by faith (Eph 2:8+9), its never enough to be saved, RCC demand more & more
May the triune, infallible, omniscient God bless you with faith in Him, not fallible man’s limited knowledge of theories.Repent of your sin & trust in Jesus (Mark 1:15/Acts 3:19) before it's too late (Hebrews 9:27), eternity is a long time to be wrong (Revelation 20:15).
I guess your are referring to Jeff's remarks @2.30-3.00. Apart from not listening carefully what is being said, this teaching is laid out clearly from the Council of Trent, Session 22, canon 3; in Baltimore Catechism; in the Catechism of the Catholic Church #1366 and in Mediator Dei, Encylical of Pope Pius XII. All teaching that the Mass is a sacrifice for sin. It's a well know practice that the Mass is offered both for the living and the dead for the forgiveness of their sins because it's is the "same sacrifice" as that that was carried out on the Cross. Please read carefully the quotations I have given you from your own Church teachings. The so called sacrament of confession is not enough if you don't attend Mass.
@@robmc120You have no clue about catholic doctrine.
Also it’s grace THROUGH faith, not by faith. The gift of salvation is there for you to accept or deny regardless if you have faith.
@@bourbonrebel5515 "You have no clue about catholic doctrine."
Yet provide no examples to substantiate....i lived the RCC life the first 20 years of my life, it provides nothing but unbiblical works & legalism.
"The gift of salvation is there for you to accept or deny regardless if you have faith."
So when the verse continues, "NOT of yourselves" it IS of ourselves?
Repent of your sin & trust in Jesus (Mark 1:15/Acts 3:19) before it's too late (Hebrews 9:27), eternity is a long time to be wrong (Revelation 20:15).
I thank God that He freed me from the cult of Papism
No, you reject the fullness of apostlic Christian teaching, as the Eucharist is the focal point of all pre reformation Christian worship.
It's not just Catholic. It's all of Christianity.
One of my issues - Jesus OFTEN spoke in parables. I took his statement about the bread and wine to be another parable - or figurative.
For example, Jesus often call his followers “sheep”. Does that mean believers are wooly four-legged animals? NO!
It’s interesting he spoke a parable yet the listeners understood him to be speaking literally
@@bourbonrebel5515 How do you substantiate the claim that the audience believed an idea that was invented nearly 1200 years after Jesus said it?
@@NoLongerNeedThis The early church understood it to be his flesh and blood so I have no idea what you’re talking about
Jesus also aid he is the great "I Am" and "The way, the truth, and the life." Is he speaking figuratively here too?
@@bourbonrebel5515no, the scoffers took him literally.
His followers were bothered by it but then he explained to them that he was talking to them, not about flesh and blood, but about spirit and truth.
Read all of John - all of it - for the John 6 to make full sense. His entire gospel is based on The Word Made Flesh, and the Word being a Light to the world. It’s a highly spiritual gospel, and if you get hung up on fleshly physical interpretations, you will miss it.
This is why as a Confessional Lutheran, we certainly don't consider ourselves in line with the rest of protestantism on this one.
Out of curiosity, what makes you favor the mechanism of Consubstantiation rather that the mechanism of Spiritual/Mystical Presence?
@@emmaus5975
Transubstantiation affirms the real presence.
The holy spirit is consubstantial with the son, and when he consecrates the bread and wine, Christ is truly present as he stated and doubled down in John 6.
This is precisely why the Eucharist is the focal point of all pre reformation Christian worship.
@eddardgreybeard725
Consubstabtiation (what Lutherans affirm) also affirms true presence.
Spiritual/Mystical presence (what most other Protestants affirm) also affirms true presence.
Thanks for your input, but it has no relevance.
@@emmaus5975
If you're calling it a symbol you're not affirming the real presence.
If you're saying Christ was speaking metaphorically, you're not affirming the real presence.
If you don't believe you're in the presence of Christ when you're before the bread and wine, you're not affirming the real presence.
@eddardgreybeard725
"I you are calling it a symbol you are not affirming real presence"
That is a false dichotomy. The Eucharist is a symbol AND Christ is truly present. This is the historical Christian position. St. Athanasius the Great held this position.
"If you are saying Christ was speaking metaphorically, you are not affirming real presence "
I assume you are referring to John 6. This is a false dichotomy. Christ was speaking metaphorically because Chriat is not literally a loaf of bread. Christ is also truly present at Communion.
"If you don't believe you are in the presence of Christ when you are before the bread and wine you are not affirming the real presence "
Yes. I agree. I affirm a different, and I dare say superior, mechanism of the true presence than you do.
I'm unchurched but my interpretation is that Jesus and Paul instructed the Eucharist as symbolic and a means of teaching. Like bread and wine feed our flesh, Jesus Christ nourishes our soul. He is our spiritual sustenance. If Jesus did simply mean "just eat these wafers and take a sip of one once in a while at church" then why did so many people walk away from Jesus saying it was too complicated to understand? That's not complicated at all, and that interpretation seems spiritually destitute in my opinion. My view is to take the eucharist is something you do every time you eat or drink anything. You remind yourself that this food and drink is nourishing your body like Jesus Christ nourishes your soul.
"Jesus and Paul instructed the Eucharist as symbolic "
All sacraments involve symbols, but not symbols only, of a greater spiritual reality,
Rome and her traditions! SMH Not exactly the thing to base one's faith upon.
czcams.com/video/lWBQvUPabvY/video.htmlsi=h-8j5iQtDwB3kIWA
Oh yeah, so where did you get that canon of scripture from? Hm?
@@Flame1500As Peter wrote, from Holy men carried by the Holy Ghost. Hope this helps.
That’s certainly more reliable than following the rants of men which started 500 years ago.
@@johnflorio3576until you realize that many of your traditions weren’t practiced by the apostles.
I wish more Protestants saw the error in the most foundational doctrine of their theology.
Sola Scriptura is a self-defeating doctrine. However, all Protestant apologists rely on the presupposition that this doctrine is not only true, but that it is accepted by every Christian.
And if that doctrine were actually true, then Protestants would have more of a sturdy foundation to build their arguments on. However, since the doctrine of sola scriptura is not valid, none of the anti-Catholic critiques they make can be considered valid either.
With that being said, in order for Sola Scriptura to be considered a valid doctrine, there would need to be an intra-scriptural reference as to how many and which books constitue the canon of scripture. However, we all know that there isn't. This would mean that one would have to appeal to an authority that is outside of and above scripture to determine the canon of scripture. This appeal to an extra-scriptural authority defeats the concept of sola scriptura altogether.
Another question I have had for some time, but have yet to get an answer to is this: If two non-Catholic Christians disagree on the interpretation of scripture, how do they reconcile who has the correct interpretation? What authority do they appeal to?
Sola Scriptura fails at the table of contents.
@bottomoftherabbithole reader Paul Trinca did a response to this coming from an Orthodox perspective for anyone who is interested! Already has 5,000 views!
Your last two questions would've sufficed 😂😂 Unfortunately, it's essentially "interpretation relativism" in that doctrine
I wish Catholics would understand the error in following Rome instead of scripture. Sola scriptura doesn’t mean scripture only. It simply means that there is only one infallible rule of faith and that is scripture. We recognize and appreciate other authorities, we just recognize those authorities are fallible. For instance; we reformed folks, just like the reformers themselves, got a ton from the church fathers. Many, many fathers taught them many things. Edifying things and important things. In fact, more of the early church father teachings align with the reformers. The early church would be appalled that Rome is claiming they would support them. Even past popes don’t agree with current Rome. So much for infallibility. That’s what the reformation was, to return to the early church, away from what Rome had done to it. They realized that man is fallible, all men are and there was only one infallible option. So all things should be judged against scripture. As far as the cannnon, you should learn more about it. There were arguments in Rome about what was cannon all the way up through the Middle Ages. In fact, Jerome argued for a cannon much closer to what Protestants have. There is this view that Rome has put out that the reformers just removed books that everyone agreed was Cannon for centuries. This is false. Most of what you have been told about church history from Rome is just Rome imposing their totally unbiblical dogmas back into history, they want to pretend all the fathers were proto-Roman Catholics and that is so far from the truth
For your last question, I’m not sure why you think we need a central authority that claims to be the vicar of Christ to answer questions “infallibly” if there are disputes we would do what we are supposed to do, go to scripture to interpret scripture. If there is still disagreement, go to elders and teachers to get guidance. But they could still be wrong and there could still be disagreement. That’s why there are varying views between Protestants and that’s ok. Just like there is with Roman Catholics. We don’t have to agree on every single issue, to a T. Because RC, EO, Protestants don’t. It’s just that RCs pretend they agree on everything, when they really don’t. Everyone has varying views to a degree, we just don’t lie and pretend that we don’t. It’s just not reality that every person will agree on every single issue. There is room for disagreement. The issues that matter, the foundational issues, Who God is, Who we are and how we have Peace with God, those answers are found in scripture with clear answers. Proper exegesis of the text solves 99% of the issues. The Gospel isn’t up for interpretation. The problem is when you adopt Rome’s stance, you get purgatory, Marian dogmas, indulgences, the papacy, transubstantiation, etc. and you are forced to believe these fairy tales or you are anathema. I’ll take agreement on the core issues with room for disagreement on periphery issues over gnostic dogmas I am forced to believe with zero evidence at all other than “oral tradition”. We have authorities in the Protestant world, our confessions of faith are the standard authorities that are subordinate to scripture, with some room for small differences. We just didn’t make the mistake of claiming one man and his decrees are binding law. We have traditions and confessions that state those beliefs and traditions, but scripture reigns supreme, not the church that reigns supreme. Rome has placed itself above scripture, if you can’t see that as an error, then I don’t know what to tell you.
This was very helpful for me right now
Thank you brother
Jeff, any Roman Catholic will deny that they believe that Transubstantiation is eating the actual flesh of Christ because they don't understand their own organizations teachings.
Because of the doctrinal diversity that springs from the fundamental error of Sola Scriptura, Protestantism is the Crayola Crayon Box of heresies.
And Catholics all this time are completely united in their understanding of applied theology, sure!
@@nicoleortiz4396 Christ has established an authoritative teaching Church (Magisterium) guided by the Divine Spirit. Dogmas (like God’s triune nature, Mary’s immaculate conception, etc) are settled issues; other teachings are generally non-infallible and could and have been changed (like limbo). Individual Catholics may be confused or dissent, but the official body of teaching is solid. On the other hand, according to the Protestant paradigm, every individual Christian is his own pope, a Magisterium of one. This why the Protestant experiment is a failure.
@@1962mrpaulreading your response is hysterical. Thank you for that
@@1962mrpaulanyone who says that Marian dogmas are settled issues when these things were taken from gnostic heresies and showed up hundreds and hundreds of years later. There is zero evidence for multiple Roman dogmas. The church fathers were much closer to the reformers than anything that looks like Rome. It’s not even a question. You are just parroting lies from Rome
@@1962mrpaulalso, you have no idea what the Protestant paradigm is. We don’t believe in Popes that Rome made up.
The great Protestant irony.. they reject the teachings and authority of The Catholic Church , the same Church which canonized the bible, their only authority.
I know it’s been touched and talked about so many times - but Ward Radio posted a video 2 weeks ago ‘Debunking “the Book of Mormon is a different Gospel”’. Im shocked. From the speakers saying that Evangelicals better stop hating because one day we might need Mormons as a last chance “Good Samaritan” moment, to Kwaku saying he like Joel Osteen, Steven furtick - and that they’re “going to heaven”, just because they’re nice people? I’m shocked I’m so shocked. I wanted to walk into that video having a bit of respect for their position and theology - but it’s prideful and wilful ignorance - blind.
If Christ was speaking symbolically, how come he doesn’t clarify or say so like He does in other places in John?
He let the crowds go... they took him literally. AND Jesus let them go without correction. Interestingly, the Romans accused the Christians of eating their Christ!!
He did.
Jesus then compares and contrasts Himself to the manna that Israel had eaten in the time of Moses: “Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die” (John 6:49-50). Like manna, Jesus came down from heaven; and, like manna, Jesus gives life. Unlike manna, the life Jesus gives lasts for eternity (verse 58). In this way, Jesus is greater than Moses (see Hebrews 3:3).
Having established His metaphor (and the fact that He is speaking of faith in Him), Jesus presses the symbolism even further: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will live forever; and this bread, which I will offer so the world may live, is my flesh. . . . I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you. But anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life. . . . My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. . . . Anyone who feeds on me will live because of me” (John 6:51-56, NLT).
To prevent being misconstrued, Jesus specifies that He has been speaking metaphorically: “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you-they are full of the Spirit and life” (John 6:63). Those who misunderstood Jesus and were offended by His talk about eating His flesh and drinking His blood were stuck in a physical mindset, ignoring the things of the Spirit. They were concerned with getting another physical meal, so Jesus uses the realm of the physical to teach a vital spiritual truth. Those who couldn’t make the jump from the physical to the spiritual turned their backs on Jesus and walked away (verse 66).
@@nicknickson3650 The Old Testament Manna was TRUE heavenly food. It sustained the Israelites while they wandered in the desert. They ALSO received Quail - FLESH - in the evening. Both stopped when they entered the promised land.
This prefigures a greater fulfillment. We receive TRUE heavenly food - the Bread of Life himself - while we wander in a spiritual desert. It too will stop when we enter our heavenly home, being with God face to face.
@@TruthHasSpoken Yes that's what I'm saying. So you agree that communion is symbolic for how faith in Jesus Christ is consuming the bread of life?
@@nicknickson3650 Rather, the bread and wine are symbols, but not symbols ONLY, of the greater spiritual reality: receiving the resurrected body and blood of Jesus Christ.
I’d like to see him debate this topic against someone like Jay Dyer ☦️ I don’t think he’d ever go for it to though.
Jeff or Jay would refuse?
Jay Dyer, what is his theology this week? 😂
Jeff won't accept a debate
@@timrosen1618 The correct one ☦️
@@user-yg2ms9od5s So he is no longer EO, good for him.
I agree with Jeff's presentation of Scripture about the Lord's Supper, but it is hard to explain why the early Christians and church fathers seemed to quickly and strongly embrace the true body/true blood position. Perhaps because of the kinds of false teachings they were trying to stand against.
Early Christians believed in the true presence of the Eucharist, just as Christians hold this belief today because it is true. On the road to Emmaus, Jesus revealed Himself in the breaking of the bread. This is the new manna. God bless you, Matthew.
It's so hard one might even dare say, impossible to view it Jeff's way. Nobody interpreted it this way in the life of the Church prior to the reformation. Which makes it questionable.
@dman7668
No one interpreted them the Roman Catholic way until the early medieval period. Does that make Transubstantiation questionable?
@@emmaus5975i'll be surprised if he actually answers
. False read the early church fathers. They believed in the Eucharist as a sacrament and not just a aymbol
what do you think of How to Be Christian's video?
He will never address this.
St. Augustine said- Jesus, while holding up bread, at that moment Christ held himself in his very hands.
The trinity in a sense is a "developed" doctrine as well, developed simply means a deeper understanding of something, not a change.
""The trinity is a "developed" doctrine as well, "
The early Christians accepted (as Jesus says THIS IS MY BODY) that the bread and wine TRANFORMED into the resurrected Christ. Much later, the articulation of HOW this occurred in the term "transubstantiation." It wasn't a change of doctrine. Christians, ALL OF THEM, continued with the same belief but the doctrine evolved, adding the articulation of HOW it occurred.
The eucharist is the presence of God. Period. The Word is quite literal on the matter. Would you say baptism is symbolic or literal?
Ahh… to be deep in stupidity… is to be deep in Calvinism.
.....is for you to deeply (fallaciously) ad hominem instead of substantiate your claim
@@robmc120 We have an entire series on John 6 that refutes the nonsense Jeff Durbin says here: czcams.com/play/PLQIRBjk9xTUarTJeK0SxFB8abZKJ-xTnt.html&si=uDe8zmvUI0FAkTd6
Our claim is substantiated by the facts. Calvinism is a compilation of ridiculous man-made teachings.
And we used no “ad hominem”. Not sure where you’re getting that.
Seethe more
Looking forward to your video on this! Your work is great 👍
@@HowToBeChristian is there an email for Jeff that you can write to? Have you ever tried to contact him directly? It seems he is avoiding your videos on him at all costs.
John 6: 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Keep reading one verse further. Truly, truly, the consecrated bread, Christ's body, is true food. Food is always consumed. It does not follow that because Christ is spiritually present, that he is not also physically present. It also does not follow that because you do something in remembrance of someone, that that person cannot be truly physically and spiritually present
You are making up nonsense.
@@Scribeintheink
I thought you were smart? And you can't seem to follow his simple sillogism that you have to denigrate it as nonsense?
Ironic.
Jesus would never tell you to commit a sin. Eating human is a sin, period even if it’s Jesus’ flesh and blood.
@@darkma1ice Your thoughts are exactly why some of his Jewish disciples couldn't handle Jesus' teaching and why some of them left him over this issue. If the bread is not Christ's body, then why would the Jews dispute and leave Jesus because of his teaching?
52" The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”"
60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this?
66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.
Furthermore, you misunderstand for the accidents of bread and wine remain, yet in substance, it is Christ's body and blood
@@Scribeintheink How? I quoted scripture. Furthermore, this is corroborated by 1 Corinthians 10: 15-17; 1 Corinthians 11: 23-30; Matthew 26: 26-29
Trying to take this in, but didn’t Jesus reference the manna sent from heaven in the Old Testament? Wasn’t he born in Bethlehem, which means’house of bread’? Wasn’t he born in a manger, something animals fed from? Wasn’t the Sabbath lamb eaten? Didn’t he say ‘do this in memory of me’? And didn’t St Paul reference this repeated act in his letters? Wasn’t it written in Acts that the apostles practiced this? Wasn’t the priest Malchezidek tithed with bread and wine? Wasn’t it written that many disciples were lost with this teaching? Wasn’t the word ‘chew’ or knaw used when Jesus said whoever doesn’t chew on the flesh doesn’t enter heaven? So confusing. It seems so balanced and meaningful the traditional approach. And what about the miracles over the centuries regarding flesh and blood and the Eucharist? Isn’t there a famous person I read who still today, every time she takes communion it turns to real flesh and blood? I am lost? Please do clarify?
My Catholic friend,
What part of "drink" didn't you understand in the commandment from our Savior?
Matthew 26:27
And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you;
Mark 14:23
And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it.
Luke 22:20
And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.
John 6:53-57
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 yourselves. 54 “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 “For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56 “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 “As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. LSB
The Eastern Orthodox have no problem with Transubstantiation: “Fourthly, attention must be paid that the priest have, at the time of consecration, the intention that the real substance of the bread and the substance of wine be transubstantiated into the real body and blood of Christ through the operation of the Holy Spirit. He makes this invocation when he confects this mystery by praying and saying: “Send your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts here offered and make this bread the precious body of your Christ, and that which is in this chalice the precious blood of your Christ, changing them by your Holy Spirit.” Transubstantiation occurs immediately with these words, and the bread is transubstantiated into the real body of Christ and the wine into the real blood of Christ, with the visible appearances alone remaining.” Orthodox Confession of Faith, Peter Mogila, Metropolitan of Kiev
There is no sacerdotal Priesthood in the NT.
@@tricord2939 A little off topic. Mr. Derbin isn’t addressing the issue of the priesthood, but of the Eucharist, specifically the fact that Jesus is really, truly and substantially present in the sacrament. I was reacting to Mr. Derbin’s demonstratively inaccurate summation of Orthodoxy vis-a-vis transubstantiation. They explicitly agree with this term even if they don’t always use it. Mr. Derbin seems to want to make it appear the Roman Church is a maverick here, whereas in reality on this issue Rome adheres to the ancient faith.
To your point: the term “sacerdotal” means “of priests; priestly.” The phrase “sacerdotal priesthood,” then, would mean “priestly priesthood.” So you’re claiming there is no priestly priesthood in the New Testament. Let’s test this assertion.
The central thesis of the Letter to the Hebrews is that Jesus possesses a priesthood that supersedes, fulfills and replaces the Levitical Priesthood of the Old Law. For example, Hebrews 4:14 reads “Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess.” Jesus possesses a sacerdotal role which He currently exercises in the Heavenly Holy of Holies.
1 Peter 2:9 unambiguously identifies believers as having a sacerdotal role: “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. “
In describing the Messianic age, the Prophet Isaiah foretells how even from among the Gentiles “some will be made priests and levites (Isaiah 66:21), indicating that in the new covenant, besides the royal priesthood common to all, there would be a ministerial priesthood held by some but not all.
Wow can’t believe Jeff went with the “development” argument. Especially when a jw or Mormon can easily use that on him and his theology. Also thank God we don’t have to rely on Jeff’s interpretation of scripture. Note that he didn’t read it into context people. When looking at the Bible as a whole, the old and the new. We get the complete picture. Would gladly like to see Jeff debate this topic instead of proof texting and reading his theology in it.
“development argument” the scriptures in context and history support Jeff’s teaching on the Eucharist. There is no sacerdotal priesthood in the New Testament. Hilarious how your whole comment is based on folklore.
@@timrosen1618And the scriptures in context support the JW's teaching there is no Trinity. You can't have it both ways
@@shylahtaeroni5454 Incorrect
@@timrosen1618 Prove it without contradicting yourself then
@@shylahtaeroni5454 Prove me wrong if you can, don’t be silly.
If they think that transubstantiation was the tradition from the start, then why were they debating it in the ninth century. This is just another accretion.
Yeah, Christ is the Word made flesh, so believing His Words is taking His flesh and blood in, but some of His Words are "this [bread and wine] is My flesh and blood", so it seems unavoidable that we are to practice the Lord's Supper if we are to abide in Him and He in us.
6:16 Also in John 6: John 6:51-58
[51] I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” [52] The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?” [53] Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. [54] Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. [55] For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. [56] Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. [57] Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. [58] This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” Jesus explained that His bread literally is his body. Some disciples questioned Him and rather than explain it was only a metaphor, Jesus doubled down on his literalism. Also, earlier in the video Jeff says EO reject transubstantiation.. They neither reject nor accept that doctrine, rather they leave consecration as a sacred mystery.
The point is if Jeff were to say "it's just a symbol" they'd tell him no, it's the body and blood of Christ.
2:54 Point of correction: yes, the Biblical Eucharist is a true and proper sacrifice, a presenting again of the one unrepeatable sacrifice AND the means by which each and all of the members of Christ’s ecclesial Body participate in His sacrifice, offering themselves in union with Christ.
The disciples who turned away from Jesus in John 6:66 also looked on him and believed. Obviously, that doesn’t mean that they also ate and drank of his flesh and blood or else they wouldn’t have stopped following him.
I see Jay Dyer is here trying to challenge Pastor Durban to a debate, but the Eucharist, based on theHoly Scriptures, the Last supper & John 6, does not change because Jay gives Constantinoples alternative theory.
The papacy is All about maintaining its supposed power, control, and authority; more than it's actually concerned about furthering The Kingdom. The papacy is all about pomp and circumstance. Jesus Clearly told the Apostles to NOT lord over each other like the Unbelieving Gentiles, but what does the papacy do? The Complete Opposite!! The papacy lords over Believers; asserting that the Common Believer is in no place to challenge them and their magesterium. So yeah, the papacy is No Different than Rome and it's Emperor's...both are Concerned about Power, Control, and Authority. Rome and it's emperors wanted to rule the natural world and the papacy in Rome wants to rule spiritual things.
Claimed without any substantiation.
This is the truth and It will never be addressed.
@@WC3isBetterThanReforged Without substantiation? Regarding what?
@@MrSencere your claim that the papacy is all about maintaining control and power but not advancing the Kingdom. You posted a lot of personal opinion without any substantiation to your claims.
I’d say Catholicism was closer to the way the Sadducees and Pharisees operated
The Bible is clear salvation is by grace alone by faith alone to the glory of God alone cannibalism is not condoned in the Bible.
The bible says none of that.
The only time the words _faith_ and _alone_ appear together in the Bible is in the Epistle of James, the book that Martin Luther wanted to remove from the Bible.
_You see that a man is justified by works and _*_not by faith alone_*_ ._
James 2:24 LSB
And martin Luther wanted to remove the book of James. Look, Calvinists think they can lawyer and twist their way into heaven.
Read Ephesians 2 verse 8 if that doesn't help I can send more.
The really flimsy reasons they give to not obey clear words, like baptism saves but use a clear passage about no female leadership made me stop listening and go to Lutheran Church, then Orthodox. It's so proof texting and does not look anything like the early church , those that walked with the apostles and decided what was scripture under the directions of Christ and the Holy Spirit as He promised to lead and guide the church. So study of early church made me leave Calvinism for Lutheran Church, and now I'm going Orthodox.
Mary in scripture.
1.
Scripture does **not** teach the idea that we need to send anyone for us to the throne of God to ask for grace or mercy, anyone including Mary. On the contrary, we are warmly invited to approach God's throne.
Hebrews 4:14-16 ESV -
*Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.*
2.
That little word "until" shows that Mary was not perpetually a virgin. And, yes, it is in the original Greek. Grammar is not complex.
Matthew 1:24-25 ESV -
*When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.*
3.
Jesus exalted the word of God and obedience to it above his family members.
Matthew 12:46-50 ESV -
*While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.*
This is a companion passage to Matthew 12.
Luke 11:27-28 ESV -
*As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!” But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”*
4.
She herself glorified her savior. She was not a sinless person.
Luke 1:47 ESV -
*and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,*
****FLEE THIS ANTI-CHURCH****
❤ Honest conversation is welcome.
All doctrine unique to the Catholic church is unnecessary if Christ's sacrifice is complete.
If Christ's sacrifice was perfect and he took away all sin past, present, and future than...
Penance has no purpose.
Purgatory has no point.
Absolution is unnecessary.
Need I go on?
Yes, Christ's sacrifice on the cross is complete and Final. The Bible confirms this repeatedly.
Flee this Anti-church.
Trust In Christ Alone.
Trust in him alone like you would trust a parachute. You can add nothing to a parachute by flapping your arms. Just as you can add nothing to the perfect and finished sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross for all of your sins. Do not cheapen the saviors work by adding mans tradition on to it.
Flee and find a church that allows all of its members to drink from the cup of Christ, not just the priests.
Jesus christ my father my life my love
If it were not for having such a loving catholic wife with ultimate patience I never would have indulge in learning about the church Jesus started. And it is fast, huge, eye-opening, historical and deeper than anything I grew up with.
The Eucharist
the Eucharist is the outward belief of the Eucharist action. Not salvific but in a sacrificial way of the individual coming to the Eucharist purely free from unrepentant sin. I believe it’s a practice that should be done every time the church congregate. It’s a way of participating with the Spirit of God. It’s more than just remembrance. If you look at first Corinthians chapter 11, there’s a clear exegetical importance emphasized upon the Eucharist according to Paul. So serious that people were actually dying for participating in the Eucharist, while under unrepentant sin. They were defiling the body and blood of Christ not transubstantiatally, but spiritually because of their sin was unresolved before participation. 1 John 1:9
This means the Eucharist is for the regenerate believer, but more so for the repentant regenerate believer. In other words, if you’re a regenerate saved believer, but are struggling with sin willfully, you cannot participate in the Eucharist. For instance, the Eucharist is for the one who overcomes. Not the sinless perfectionist, but the one who is active in dealing with sin.
The Eucharist should be done every day. As often as believers congregate, and it should be the centrality of that congregation with the word of God. The historical church dating back to the first century practiced this way.
If you go to John 6 you would be a Catholic.
Not if you read it in context
If you read John 6 literally, why did the (R) Catholic Church withhold the cup from the laity for Hundreds of years?
Unless you eat AND drink.
You don’t drink bread. Jesus was explicit on what His blood was…and it was not bread….
If you want to read John 6 in the way the (R) Catholic Church claims it reads John 6…..literally
Don’t forget the Lutherans
How does someone eat Jesus’ flesh? What does it taste like?
"John 6:66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him." now if it was symbolic Jesus would have to say "wait guys I only meant this symbolically" don't leave.
After pastor Jeff being more than clear on his explanation I think it will be accurate to say that actually He told the real disciples that what was said was actually symbolic, of course in a different way, please take a look to the verse 63: “63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”
What an ignorant statement
Good grief man did you forget TO READ THE WHAT JESUS SAID IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THAT? Jesus, after learning that some of them were confused about the saying said to them.
"Does this offend you? What then if you should see the son of man ascend to where he was?
THE FLESH PROFITS NOTHING, (he clearly just told them the flesh profits nothing. In other words you would gain nothing by eating my literal flesh) it is the spirit that gives life. The words that I speak to you they are spirit and they are life, BUT there are some of you here who do not BELIEVE.
What did Jesus say was the problem?
He said
"but there are some of you here who do not BELIEVE."
He did NOT says "but there are some of you here who have not yet literally eaten a piece of My flesh and drink my literal blood"
He literally told them in his response to them being confused over what he was saying that the "flesh profits NOTHING"
Also why would Jesus say wait I didn't mean literally?
Because I'm another passage his disciples asked him "why do you speak to the people in parables."
And Jesus told them that it was because to them it has not been given "therefore I speak to the people in parables so that seeing they may not see in hearing they may not hear."
In case you didn't notice when you were reading through the New testament anytime Jesus is speaking to a crowd of children of God mixed with children of Satan he always spoke in parables and symbolic language.
It was ONLY and he was in the presence of only believers that he spoke to them plainly.
Clearly he was being symbolic. I could go on but if you still don't understand that he was being symbolic then I don't think there is anything that would break through the cognitive dissonance that you have because of the brainwashing of the Catholic Church.
Not really
@@WilsonALO there's a difference between the flesh (sinful desires) and Jesus' flesh. Would you apply that to the word becoming flesh as profiting nothing too?
Very Well Stated!!! Transubstantiation is Not Biblical. Scripture is clear...Humanity wasn't given human flesh to eat and Humanity was overtly commanded to Not consume blood...Period. So we Clearly Know that Jesus was Not commanding Believers to disobey The Clear Teaching of The Word. If He did then He would not be considered Sinless. Jesus makes it clear that He is speaking of spiritual things. Eating flesh profits Nothing. Jesus makes it abundantly clear what He is after and we find it earlier in John 6 as this vid points out. Jesus is looking for those who look to Him and Believe. These are those who will Neither Hunger or Thirst. These are those to whom The LORD gives Eternal Life.
Interestingly enough, John 6 also rejects the RCC doctrine that teaches water Baptism is required for Salvation. Jesus clearly refutes that Doctrine here. What's Required for Salvation/Eternal Life/to be Born Again? Looking to Jesus in Faith. Now...as a Result, The Believer should Most Definitely get Baptized and partake in Communion.
But hey, just like with every denomination...the RCC needs its gimmick and thing that supposedly sets it apart. So they boast in the papacy, their eucharist, and their praying to Mary just to name a few. It's like..."See, you gotta come over hear because we have this and they don't." The problem, Scripture doesn't teach the papacy, Transubstantiation, or praying to Mary (or any other deceased Believer).
Hey brother I feel like you’re struggling with this one. Christ is comparing himself to the manna from heaven. We must EAT and GNAW or CHEW on the WORD of God. Christ is simply claiming divinity here and reminding them he is the WORD that became FLESH and dwelt among men. I agree with you here. But, I wanted to help you as well. Which this claim of Christ goes back to the passage in Joshua 1:8. God Bless
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 Saint Ignatius, Letter to the Romans 7:3, A.D. 110
❤Yes! I pray for Roman Catholics, that they can see this truth and believe this.
Here’s a Roman Catholic addressing Jeff’s last video czcams.com/video/zNx0P0b-xmE/video.htmlsi=HZPCDBuMwaywSNwS
Why would you need to? Catholics have accepted Jesus Christ as our savior.
Isnt that all we need to do?
@@MikeHiester I think that’s the point of contention between the two sides.
A Catholic would say a believe in Jesus as our savior through faith, repentance and baptism creates their initial justification. Once they are in the faith, whether they continue to abide in Christ depends on the good works they do and the bad works they abstain. James 1:26 says “Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”
From this passage, can we still claim “believe” is all we need? Or is obedience to God’s commandments is also necessary? If obedience to the commandment is also necessary then it logically follows that believe alone is not enough: we also need one obedience and that obedience dictates that we do some good works (work of love) and we stay away from bad works (work of the flesh)
@@walkingtherange5680 There two aspects to salvation that goes together, justification and santification. There are two main aspects of false Christianity; legalisim and antinomianism. Incidentally many people just can't grasp the concept of the Lordship of Jesus. When one believes on Jesus but thinks he is able to lead himself to please God, what we end up mixed up on Justification and Santification and eventually falling into legalisim or antinomianism, both are deadly to Christianity.
I understand what you are saying but I am not aware of anyone or any Christian denomination who believe they can be pleasing to God on their own merit. We all need Christ so that isn’t the debate. The question for me is is obedience to the commandments necessary?
Take John 13: 34 - Jesus gives us a new commandment: love one another. In 1 Corinthian 13 we see Paul echo the same commandment in obedience by saying if he haas all the faith in the world as to move mountains but doesn’t have love, he’s got nothing. This aligns to what James said in James 2 regarding faith and works. Yes we agree it’s through Christ that we are able to do these things but it’s entirely our free will to choose to obey and cooperate.
Yes it is heresy case closed.
Wow you really know how to prove your point... NOT.
Guess what... I'm not the least concerned about what the so called Catholic church thinks. I'll tell the Pope to his face he's going to hell if he doesn't repent and believe the gospel that Jesus Christ and his apostles taught, not the false man made Gospel that the so called Catholic church teaches.
You believe the so called Catholic church. I believe Jesus and the Bible.
Catholics are clueless as to the teachings of the Bible. Catholics are incapable of using the Bible to back up their beliefs without taking passages completely out of context.
Ps.
Trent Horns opinion is no more valuable to me than my cats opinion. I could not care less what he thinks. I care what Jesus thinks and the Bible tells us what he thinks... And it's not AT ALL what Trent thinks.
As a Lutheran.. you dont speak for all protestants. We affirm Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. You can affirm that Christ is truly present without transubstantiation to describe it. The early church believed Christ is truly present in the Eucharist.
Also we beleive that through consumption of the Eucharist we do receive forgiveness of sins and grace.
And teaching that one is anathema if they don't believe, blindly, by faith, what the Church claims but cannot prove-and like compelled idolatry if you ask me. I mean, "Do it or else!" IF what "the Church" claims is true, wouldn't that make it the only non-evidential "miracle" in all of the Bible?
@patriceagulu8315
Of "the Church" that claims to be Christ's "Church" isn't...
@patriceagulu8315
No, folks lying, making claims there is no good reason to believe ≠ great demonstration.
Nobody is going to take jeff seriously until he debates Jay Dyer ☦️🔥
Intelligent well studied people do
@@Scribeintheink
You mean Calvinists and other reformed and possibly some Lutherans?
That's an echo chamber of yes men.
Like the OP said, no one is going to take Jeff seriously until he debates some non-reformed heavyweights.
His collision videos are nothing more than reformed shadowboxing replete with Catholic strawman and misrepresentations of what Catholics believe and by extension the Orthodox and intelligent well studied Catholics and Orthodox can clearly discern his obvious errors and cherry picked selective quotes he attempts to spin and pass off as truth.
So yeah, he isnt taken seriously by non-reformed apologists and academics. Only by his inner cirlce of yesmen.
@@Scribeintheink Jeff Durbin has never once engaged with anybody that can question any of his presuppositions.
He's smart for doing so because the Calvinist paradigm is less than 500 years old and is built on sand.
That’s idolatry isn’t it?
@@JR0G what
jeff, you either have no idea of the Church before the schism, or you are intentionally being deceptive. I am disappointed in your lack of knowledge of the ancient church, and more importantly, misleading your followers. The early Church celebrated a Eucharistic Liturgy. It still does. The Eucharist was central to worship. It still is.
What apostle taught the “Eucharistic Liturgy” to be propitiatory?
They all did. If you want scripture, read Acts and Hebrews. "They dedicated themselves (held steadfastly) to the teachings of the Apostles, the communion, the breaking of bread, and the prayers." Unless you think they dedicated themselves and held steadfastly to eating, breaking of bread is the Eucharist. By the way, those are all definite articles, "The prayers", not just any prayers you make up as you go along. "The teachings of the Apostles," not whatever I q q think scripture means.
If you're going to be Bible only, you need to read the whole Bible, not just the parts you like.
Hundreds of external biblical sources reference it, as well, including Didiche, a first century document that describes worship.
@@frankbilotto The question was ‘What apostle taught the “Eucharistic Liturgy” to be propitiatory?’ There is absolutely nothing in Hebrews or Acts that teaches this, but the opposite.
@@frankbilotto “not just any prayers you make up as you go along” What apostles taught this? Jesus himself said pray in this manner.
You Protestants crack me up . I give you the direct quotes from Hebrews and Acts that answer both of your follow-up questions. And you ignore it. Have you even read the Bible, and not just the parts you like?
Did you know the word Liturgia appears dozens of times in the New Testament, but has been translated in your Protestant Bible to Preach or Minister? Same for Eucharist, which is translated to Thanksgiving. Your Protestant Bible also translated the same word in Greek to Tradition most of the time when it was used negatively, and to Teaching when it was used positively.
You can believe whatever you want, but please do not make arguments that have no basis in historical truth.
Your Bible also says that the Church is the Pillar of Truth. The same Church that wrote the Bible. The same Church that worships Christ the same way it did 2,000 years ago. You'd have no Bible without the tradition of the Church. Amazing that you trust the church to create your Bible and yet you don't trust that Church's interpretation of that Bible when it was the church's interpretation of those books that determined which books were included. I'm not saying you're not a Christian. you may be closer to Christ than me, but what I am saying is don't pretend that how you worship is even close to what Christians have done everywhere since Pentecost.
Is Protestantism heresy? No. Not the original reformers what they were teaching but Baptist theology is different to that of the reformers, it can be heretical.
Jeff Durbin for 9 Minutes: It’s about belief in Jesus Christ.
Jesus: My flesh is REAL food and my blood is REAL drink and you must eat my flesh and drink my blood or you will have no life in you.
Jeff the last 5 minutes: I don’t believe what Jesus just said like the Jews who left him because they also didn’t believe the Son of God could give his real flesh to eat and real blood to drink.
Please tell me this is satire or a joke and not serious.
No, that's the literal mental gymnastics they engage in.
The short answer is, duh. Of course protestantism is heretical. That's why it's collapsing under too many denominations now.
Define Protestantism.
@@Shadow-Man-vz8sv Someone who rejects the teaching authority of the Catholic Church yet professes to be Christian.
The church has always had reform the "protestant" were revolting.
You are just making things up, it is rome & the East that is losing its membership Christian Churches.
@@dman7668 Your definition isn’t accounting for ‘Orthodox Christianity’.
Yes it is heresy. But so is the papacy.
☦️🔥
How is protestantism heresy?
The papacy is biblical.
@@petros-estin-petra- how?
@petros-estin-petra St Peter establishing Churches for Christ is biblical. JP2 praying with pagans and kissing qurans is not. St Peter left the Vatican long before the Vatican was ever established
While I don’t think traditions are an infallible authority, they certainly are a form of authority. They can only be maintained if they are subject to the Scripture however, which is our only infallible authority.
Your only infallible source says otherwise:
“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”
2 Thessalonians 2:15
@@WiIICheck nowhere does that say that any and all traditions are infallible. Protestants agree with that statement, to hold to the traditions of the Apostles. However, very many Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions have no rooting in Apostolic tradition. Not all traditions are valid or rooted in Scripture.
@@WiIICheck You are assuming that the traditions being referenced in the verse are the same as the traditions held by the current day RCC when there is no indication that the "traditions" are anything more than what has already been taught in Scripture.
@@douglasmcnay644If all of the traditions taught by the apostles were in scripture then there is no need to tell the Church of Thessalonians to hold fast to both oral and written. They can just hold fast to the written.
No tradition is rooted in Scripture; it’s scripture that is rooted in Tradition.
Jeff's question "in John 6 if they believe in him right then and there, did they eat the bread of life"?
Answer! No if we understand "eat" in a literal sense as something we put in our mouth to chew and swallow because in the succeeding verses has not given up to them his flesh/blood and Jesus was clearly specific in v53 "unless you EAT THE FLESH...unless you DRINK THE BLOOD..." so in John 6 there was no actual giving of flesh and blood for them to eat and drink.
but if we take "eat" symbolically as "absorbing information" then yeah they "ate" the teachings Jesus. What's ironic is that the other disciples never took Jesus words of eating and drinking symbolically but rather they took it literally and Jesus never even bothered to correct them.
He was reading John 6 but stopped 10-15 verses short. How typical of a Protestant to avoid those verses.
This is painful, you butcher John 6. Why does Jeff Durbin always pick verses and ignore the rest. John 6 53-59. Is not symobolic. Stop adding things. Its simple.. Believe and Euacharist it is both. Jesus instituted the Eucharist in the last supper before his passion. Jesus is God, he is omniscent and knows all. Even after the resurection, road to Emmaus (Luke 24 13-35), he appeared and walked with them but when he broke bread and they recognized him. The Eucharist is very important for salvation. I see HTBC rebuke video in future.
Are you saying that one CANNOT be saved without the Eucharist?
No one was ACTUALLY eating or drinking during Jesus' speech in John 6. They had eaten the fish & bread the night before.
Since no one was *actually* eating or drinking, Jesus MUST have been speaking figuratively. I don't see how you'd get around that without adding to the Scriptures.
@@Rashomon69 I dont know the answer, but I will follow and try to emulate what Jesus did and commanded.
The Eucharist is pretty important, same as Baptism, spreading the Gospels etc. I do not want to go to arguements that it is re-sacrifice or 'extra' added to the atonement at the cross... etc.
It is all intepretations and preset positions. However I would say based on scripture, apostles and the early church the Eucharist was very important, it is sad nowadays especially with reformers they twisted and keep repeating the same narrative. Only one side is right and I will go with scripture and what was recorded and practiced by Christ, apostles and early church. God bless!
@@DamePiglet Sorry but your statement is not correct. How did you get from that verse "since no one was actually eating or drinking.. Jesus was speaking figuratively" You added that narrative it is absurd to think that way. Read the verse with a clear lense and not presupposition.
Your arguement makes no sense at all.
@@gtobs3181
I DID read it sincerely... I was open to the truth whether you were correct or Durbin was.
In the chapter, Jesus had fed the masses; afterwards they cleaned up the leftovers & went to the other side. The crowd found him the next day.
When they found Jesus, he addressed the crowd - but He was NOT offering anyone anything to eat or drink.
If you think He was, in which verse?
Because unless Jesus was offering food & drink - offering communion - it's obvious that He was only speaking metaphorically.
Don't make accusations just because you don't like what I said. It looks to me like it's YOU practicing eisogesis, not me.
Of course the Grace of our Lord and Savior is all that is necessary to enter the Kingdom of heaven. But knowing his word and honoring the Traditions and the Bible created by his Apostles and Disciples in fulfillment of Gods command and as directed and guided to this day by the Holy Spirit I believe we each have a duty to work for good account before the fearsome and awesome judgment seat of Christ. Call that works call that receiving the Sacraments call that Theosis. Regardless of what you call it, the best example of it is the Church of the Apostles, Apostolic Fathers, Church Fathers, the Saints and Martyrs, the Orthodox Church.
Please lose the music bed in these works… extremely distracting
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (St. Ignatius of Antioch-disciple of John the Apostle, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Doesn’t seem to support the real presence “developing over time”, and it also predates “Rome”.