Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
Transubstantiation vs. Spiritual Presence: 3 Differences in Eucharistic Theology
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 08. 2024
- Here are three differences between spiritual presence and transubstantiation, two different views of the mode of "real presence" in the Eucharist, or Lord's Supper. Spiritual presence is a broadly Reformed view; transubstantiation is the Roman Catholic view. Thanks to Brett and Austin for a fantastic dialogue! See the full dialogue here: • Baptist-Catholic Dialo...
Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus.
Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai.
SUPPORT:
Become a patron: / truthunites
One time donation: www.paypal.com...
FOLLOW:
Twitter: / gavinortlund
Facebook: / truthunitespage
Website: gavinortlund.com/
MY BOOKS:
gavinortlund.c...
PODCAST:
anchor.fm/trut...
DISCORD SERVER ON PROTESTANTISM
Striving Side By Side: / discord
00:00 - 1) It's bread and wine in substance
01:38 - 2) It's only for believers
02:58 - 3) It's "spiritual eating"
05:12 - Old Testament feasting on Christ
“The reformed folks would say that the mouse doesn’t eat Christ in any sense.” That’s a funny quote out of context 😅
This is an excellent source for Protestant views. I have never had someone explain in depth the idea or spiritual presence.
Thank you so much for the great content that you continue to share and from the shepherding heart from where it seems to come. Continued blessings to you.
Thanks Clarke!
Perfect, Dr. Ortlund. You’ve articulated what I believe about the Eucharist. Thank you for your ministry!
ThatMan, I believe Jesus Christ, as Jesus Christ teaches the bread, WHEN BLESSED "is My Body ", ( Matthew 26:26). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 Did you watch to the video?
@@TharMan9 yes, I saw the complete conversation as well. Do you believe that the Catholic teaching on the Lord's Supper is inaccurate? Can you explain why you think so in case? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 Good. I like that Dr. Ortlund went as far as he could toward understanding Rome’s position while maintaining his own, and that likewise Dr. Salkeld went as far as he could towards understanding a reformed Protestant position while maintaining his own. They were not too far off from each other, but ultimately it comes down to the difference between the two group’s hermeneutics, exegesis, and theology. So, as a reformed Protestant I take the Lord’s words, “This is my body” somewhat figuratively - something like, “This represents my body,” while also recognizing that Jesus is present in the Eucharist through the action of the Holy Spirit. What I then think about the RC position is that it goes too far in the literal direction, saying that the bread and wine actually becomes Jesus, that we must therefore worship the elements, and that we are physically eating and drinking Jesus when we partake of them.
@@TharMan9 Yet. The most Biblical is indeed the Roman Catholic position, for Jesus Christ never said, "this represents My Body", but after blessing what was once bread, Jesus Christ teaches, " THIS IS MY BODY ",,( Matthew 26:26), as Jesus Christ is the new passover Lamb to be consumed for our salvation, for " My Flesh is True food and Blood true drink ". Jesus Christ teaches! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Well articulated Dr. Ortlund. Thanks
I feel like communion is where evangelical worship is lacking compared to our Catholic and orthodox brethren. I really felt the presence of the divine during the mass and a feeling of tradition but at the same time can’t accept certain dogmas of Rome. I feel like every Christian tradition has something lacking and it can make it difficult for people to pick one.
Sheesh.. I was literally just researching this topic and then this drops. Thanks!
Same!
I feel that one area where the Reformed tradition falls short is in the practical aspects of celebrating communion. In reformed churches the pulpit is at the center of the liturgy and the preaching of the Word is emphasized, while the sacrament of communion is often seen as a sideshow, at least practically . For this reason I think that the Anglo-Lutheran tradition is more correct, by having the altar at the center of the liturgy, and by placing equal emphasis on both the sacrament of communion and the preaching of the Word.
If it was truly reformed, there would be no Roman Pagan death crosses.
I attend a Reformed Baptist Church and the Eucharist is not seen in any sense as a side show, practically or otherwise. I have a deep reverence for receiving the body and blood of Christ.
@@MapleBoarder78 I'm glad your church gets it.
We should not just talk about presence of Christ in the communion but in the wider context of the Lord already being in me before I even go to break bread with others. I am already a temple with the Holy Ghost already dwelling in me, I am afraid I cannot relegate this presence within me. That is why the Lord told the Samaritan woman that a time had come when true worship can be experienced anywhere! Where two or three are gathered is yet another presence the Lord promised. Are you going to treat this presence with a lower degree? So for me, Eucharist's main purpose remains what the apostle Paul summarised it to be, "commemoration of His death till He comes". It is an elevated experience but we cannot dispense with the reality of Christ's setting His residence within me once I received Him.
well said!
Underrated comment
Of course Christ is present in his Word. And as we are gathered, He is present in you and in me. That is true . But the Eucharist is the mode of real presence above all other modes because Christ is substantially present . Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. I am speaking as a Catholic
@@toddvoss52 and as a Canaanite. That's Canaanite Sacrificial Tradition. That's even traced back to Egyptian practices with Osiris. Paul was pretty clear, but now we got human heart tissue appearing in cups.... like geez... that's not Christ or Christian.
@@ri3m4nn no it’s the Jewish sacrificial tradition fulfilled in Christ who offered himself as both high priest and victim . He continues to do so in the Eucharist . Catholic priests are only instruments of Christ’s self offering. He makes His offering present across time and allows us to join in this offering and thus unite ourselves to Him and to each other in Him
I never understood why Catholics would not let this be a metaphor from Christ. Should we then consider Peter to be an actual literal rock (stone), we don't, we understand that metaphor from Christ just fine.
Thank you!
Dr Ortlund, I’d like to see you do a thorough review of the Eucharistic miracles of Buenos Aires, Legnica, Poland, and Tixtla, Mx. I mean review the medical and scientific reviews. Thoughts?
Can you or will you be doing a talk about the lords supper with jordan b cooper, interacting with the Lutheran view, like you did with baptism?
I would like to know what Roman Catholics actually really believe: when exactly does the physical transformation of wine into blood take place? Is it the moment a priest ends his prayers? Is it the moment the wine enters the mouth? Or is it the moment it enters the stomach? Can someone who knows Roman Catholicism help me with this question?
@Thoska Brah when he ends the prayer and the wine is turned into blood - then even an unbeliever can drink the blood of Christ and is saved because Christ says: »Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood *has* eternal life.« (John 6:54).
@@semper_reformanda nicely said.
@@AaronR319 and how has the unworthy manner been defined in this chapter? It has been defined but has nothing to do with Transsubstantiation or confessing sin. I know we can deduce from this chapter specific things that are consistent to that which is mentioned in this passage. But we are not free to read into this chapter that people need to worry who struggle with sin - as some do believe. Here they say that when they have confessed all their sins the Lords Supper will act as a judgment to them and maybe they will die or become sick when they failed to confess even the tiniest possible sin.
The Lords Supper is not for the perfect glorified Christians it is for those who constantly need to look upon the death of Christ on the Cross of Calvary.
@@AaronR319 please clarify your first comment. What do you mean by »balance this with St Paul‘s teaching in 1 Corinthians 11 about condemnation/danger for those receiving in an unworthy manner«. What do you mean exactly?
@@AaronR319 my comments were not explicitly »about Christians« or »non-Christians«. I was talking about the context and specific topic Paul is dealing in the 11th chapter verses 17-34. Based upon the works and deeds of specific men Paul recognized the need to intervene. Rich people in a church (im that case the Corinthian Church) who do not care for poor people in that very same church need to »test and examine themselves as to whether they are in the faith« and Paul further wrote »Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?-unless indeed you are disqualified.« (2.Corinthians 13:5). So here we can clearly see that not all professing Christians in the Corinthian Church were in fact truly regenerated »believers« - as we can conclude from their behavior and Pauls words.
The question for someone who says they believe in the real presence, would you worship and adore the host? The early Fathers did. If you wouldn't then I would suggest that you believe in something other than the real presence.
@Mark Rome
Could you please direct me to the writings that show this? Thanks so much!
@@wonderingpilgrim therealpresence dot org.
e.g. St Augustine, "No one eats that flesh without first adoring it; we should sin were we not to adore it” (Enarrationes in Psalmos 98, 9)
@@markrome9702 where did Augustine mention this in Enarrationes in Psalmos 98? I looked on said website, couldn't find it and I looked at NewAdvent and there is no verse 9.
His letter 1of2:
"1. O sing unto the Lord a new song Psalm 97:1. The new man knows this, the old man knows it not. The old man is the old life, and the new man the new life: the old life is derived from Adam, the new life is formed in Christ. But in this Psalm, the whole world is enjoined to sing a new song. More openly elsewhere the words are these: O sing unto the Lord a new song; sing unto the Lord, all the whole earth; that they who cut themselves off from the communion of the whole earth, may understand that they cannot sing the new song, because it is sung in the whole, and not in a part of it. Attend here also, and see that this is said. And when the whole earth is enjoined to sing a new song, it is meant, that peace sings a new song. For He has done marvelous things. What marvelous things? Behold, the Gospel was just now being read, and we heard the marvellous things of the Lord. The only son of his mother, who was a widow, was being carried out dead: the Lord, in compassion, made them stand still; they laid him down, and the Lord said, Young man, I say unto you, Arise. Luke 7:12-14 ...The Lord has done marvellous things. What marvellous things? Hear: His own right hand, and His holy arm, has healed for Him. What is the Lord's holy Arm? Our Lord Jesus Christ. Hear Isaiah: Who has believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? Isaiah 53:1 His holy arm then, and His own right hand, is Himself. Our Lord Jesus Christ is therefore the arm of God, and the right hand of God; for this reason is it said, has He healed for Him. It is not said only, His right hand has healed the world, but has healed for Him. For many are healed for themselves, not for Him. Behold how many long for that bodily health, and receive it from Him: they are healed by Him, but not for Him. How are they healed by Him, and not for Him? When they have received health, they become wanton: they who when sick were chaste, when cured become adulterers: they who when in illness injured no man, on the recovery of their strength attack and crush the innocent: they are healed, but not unto Him. Who is he who is healed unto Him? He who is healed inwardly. Who is he that is healed inwardly? He who trusts in Him, that when he shall have been healed inwardly, reformed into a new man, afterwards this mortal flesh too, which does languish for a time, may in the end itself even recover its most perfect health. Let us therefore be healed for Him. But that we may be healed for Him, let us believe in His right hand.
2. The Lord has made known His salvation Psalm 97:2. This very right hand, this very arm, this very salvation, is our Lord Jesus Christ of whom it is said, And all flesh shall see the salvation of God; Luke 3:6 of whom also that Simeon who embraced the Infant in his arms, spoke, Lord, now let Your servant depart in peace; for my eyes have seen Your salvation. Luke 2:28-30 The Lord has made known His salvation. To whom did He make it known? To a part, or to the whole? Not to any part specially. Let no man betray, no man deceive, no man say, Lo, here is Christ, or there: Matthew 24:23 the man who says, Lo, He is here, or there, points to some particular spots. To whom has the Lord declared His salvation? Hear what follows: His righteousness has He openly showed in the sight of the heathen. Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is the right hand of God, the arm of God, the salvation of God, and the righteousness of God.
3. He has remembered His mercy to Jacob, and His truth unto the house of Israel Psalm 97:3. What means this, He has remembered His mercy and truth? He has pitied, so that He promised; because He promised and showed His mercy, truth has followed: mercy has gone before promise, promise has been fulfilled in truth....
And His truth unto the house of Israel. Who is this Israel? That ye may not perchance think of one nation of the Jews, hear what follows: All the ends of the world have seen the salvation of our God. It is not said, all the earth: but, all the ends of the world: as it is said, from one end to the other. Let no man cut this down, let no man scatter it abroad; strong is the unity of Christ. He who gave so great a price, has bought the whole: All the ends of the world.
4. Because they have seen, then, Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all you lands Psalm 97:4. You already know what it is to make a joyful noise. Rejoice, and speak. If you cannot express your joy, shout ye; let the shout manifest your joy, if your speech cannot: yet let not joy be mute; let not your heart be silent respecting its God, let it not be mute concerning His gifts. If you speak to yourself, unto yourself are you healed; if His right hand has healed you for Him, speak thou unto Him for whom you have been healed. Sing, rejoice, and make melody.
@@markrome9702 2of2:
"5. Make melody unto the Lord upon the harp: on the harp and with the voice of a Psalm Psalm 97:5. Praise Him not with the voice only; take up works, that you may not only sing, but work also. He who sings and works, makes melody with psaltery and upon the harp. Now see what sort of instruments are next spoken of, in figure: With ductile trumpets also, and the sound of the pipe of horn Psalm 97:6. What are ductile trumpets, and pipes of horn? Ductile trumpets are of brass: they are drawn out by hammering; if by hammering, by being beaten, you shall be ductile trumpets, drawn out unto the praise of God, if you improve when in tribulation: tribulation is hammering, improvement is the being drawn out. Job was a ductile trumpet, when suddenly assailed by the heaviest losses, and the death of his sons, become like a ductile trumpet by the beating of so heavy tribulation, he sounded thus: The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord. Job 1:21 How did he sound? How pleasantly does his voice sound? This ductile trumpet is still under the hammer....We have heard how he was hammered; let us hear how he sounds: let us, if it please you, hear the sweet sound of this ductile trumpet: What! shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? O courageous, O sweet sound! Whom will not that sound awake from sleep? Whom will not confidence in God awake, to march to battle fearlessly against the devil; not to struggle with his own strength, but His who proves him. For He it is who hammers: for the hammer could not do so of itself....See how (I dare so speak, my brethren) even the Apostle was beaten with this very hammer: he says, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan, to buffet me. 2 Corinthians 12:7-10 Behold he is under the hammer: let us hear how he speaks of it: For this thing, he says, I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And He said to me, My grace is sufficient for you: for My strength is made perfect in weakness. I, says His Maker, wish to make this trumpet perfect; I cannot do so unless I hammer it; in weakness is strength made perfect. Hear now the ductile trumpet itself sounding as it should: When I am weak, then am I strong....
6. The voice of the pipe of horn, what is it? The horn rises above the flesh: in rising above the flesh it needs must be solid so as to last, and able to speak. And whence this? Because it has surpassed the flesh. He who wishes to be a horn trumpet, let him overcome the flesh. What means this, let him overcome the flesh? Let him surpass the desires, let him conquer the lusts of the flesh. Hear the horn trumpets....What means this, Set your affection on things above? It means, Rise above the flesh, think not of carnal things. They were not yet horn trumpets, to whom he now spoke thus: I could not speak unto you, brethren, as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat; for hitherto you were not able to bear it: neither yet now are you able. For you are yet carnal. They were not therefore horn trumpets, because they had not risen above the flesh. Horn both adheres to the flesh, and rises above the flesh; and although it springs from the flesh, yet it surpasses it. If therefore you are spiritual, when before you were carnal; as yet you are treading the earth in the flesh, but in spirit you are rising into heaven; for though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh....Brethren, do not reproach brethren whom the mercy of God has not yet converted; know that as long as you do this, you savour of the flesh. That is not a trumpet which pleases the ears of God: the trumpet of boastfulness makes the war fruitless. Let the horn trumpet raise your courage against the devil; let not the fleshly trumpet raise your pride against your brother. Make a joyful noise in the sight of the Lord the King.
7. While you are rejoicing, and delighted with the ductile trumpets, and the voice of the horn, what follows? Let the sea be stirred up, and the fullness thereof Psalm 97:7. Brethren, when the Apostles, like ductile trumpets and horns, were preaching the truth, the sea was stirred up, its waves arose, tempests increased, persecutions of the Church took place. Whence has the sea been stirred up? When a joyful noise was made, when Psalms of thanksgiving were being sung before God: the ears of God were pleased, the waves of the sea were raised. Let the sea be stirred up, and the fullness thereof: the round world, and all that dwell therein. Let the sea be stirred up in its persecutions. Let the floods clap their hands together Psalm 97:8. Let the sea be aroused, and the floods clap their hands together; persecutions arise, and the saints rejoice in God. Whence shall the floods clap their hands? What is to clap their hands? To rejoice in works. To clap hands, is to rejoice; hands, mean works. What floods? Those whom God has made floods, by giving them that Water, the Holy Spirit. If any man thirst, says He, let him come unto Me, and drink. He that believes in Me, out of his bosom shall flow rivers of living water. John 7:37-39 These rivers clapped their hands, these rivers rejoiced in works, and blessed God. The hills shall be joyful together.
8. Before the Lord, for He has come; for He has come to judge the earth Psalm 97:9. The hills signify the great. The Lord comes to judge the earth, and they rejoice. But there are hills, who, when the Lord is coming to judge the earth, shall tremble. There are therefore good and evil hills; the good hills, are spiritual greatness; the bad hills, are the swelling of pride. Let the hills be joyful together before the Lord, for He has come; for He has come to judge the earth. Wherefore shall He come, and how shall He come? With righteousness shall He judge the world, and the people with equity Psalm 97:10. Let the hills therefore rejoice; for He shall not judge unrighteously. When some man is coming as a judge, to whom the conscience cannot lie open, even innocent men may tremble, if from him they expect a reward for virtue, or fear the penalty of condemnation; when He shall come who cannot be deceived, let the hills rejoice, let them rejoice fearlessly; they shall be enlightened by Him, not condemned; let them rejoice, because the Lord will come to judge the world with equity; and if the righteous hills rejoice, let the unrighteous tremble. But behold, He has not yet come: what need is there they should tremble? Let them mend their ways, and rejoice. It is in your power in what way you will to await the coming of Christ. For this reason He delays to come, that when He comes He may not condemn you. Lo, He has not yet come: He is in heaven, thou on earth: He delays His coming, do not thou delay wisdom. His coming is hard to the hard of heart, soft to the pious. See therefore even now what you are: if hard of heart, you can soften; if you are soft, even now rejoice that He will come. For you are a Christian. Yea, you say, I believe that you pray, and sayest, Your kingdom come. Matthew 6:10 You desire Him to come, whose coming you fear. Reform yourself, that you may not pray against yourself.".
www.newadvent.org/fathers/1801098.htm
@@markrome9702 This is utterly unrelated to adoring the Bread and Wine in the supper. To fully quote:
> ""O magnify the Lord our God" Psalm 98:5. Magnify Him truly, magnify Him well. Let us praise Him, let us magnify Him who has wrought the very righteousness which we have; who wrought it in us, Himself. For who but He who justified us, wrought righteousness in us? For of Christ it is said, "who justifies the ungodly." Romans 4:5 ..."And fall down before His footstool: for He is holy." What are we to fall down before? His footstool. What is under the feet is called a footstool, in Greek ὑ ποπόδιον, in Latin Scabellum or Suppedaneum. But consider, brethren, what he commands us to fall down before. In another passage of the Scriptures it is said, "The heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool." Isaiah 66:1 Does he then bid us worship the earth, since in another passage it is said, that it is God's footstool? How then shall we worship the earth, when the Scripture says openly, "You shall worship the Lord your God"? Deuteronomy 6:13 Yet here it says, "fall down before His footstool:" and, explaining to us what His footstool is, it says, "The earth is My footstool." I am in doubt; I fear to worship the earth, lest He who made the heaven and the earth condemn me; again, I fear not to worship the footstool of my Lord, because the Psalm bids me, "fall down before His footstool." I ask, what is His footstool? And the Scripture tells me, "the earth is My footstool." In hesitation I turn unto Christ, since I am herein seeking Himself: and I discover how the earth may be worshipped without impiety, how His footstool may be worshipped without impiety. For He took upon Him earth from earth; because flesh is from earth, and He received flesh from the flesh of Mary. And because He walked here in very flesh, and gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation; and no one eats that flesh, unless he has first worshipped: we have found out in what sense such a footstool of our Lord's may be worshipped, and not only that we sin not in worshipping it, but that we sin in not worshipping. But does the flesh give life? Our Lord Himself, when He was speaking in praise of this same earth, said, "It is the Spirit that quickens, the flesh profits nothing."...But when our Lord praised it, He was speaking of His own flesh, and He had said, "Except a man eat My flesh, he shall have no life in him." John 6:54 Some disciples of His, about seventy, were offended, and said, "This is an hard saying, who can hear it?" And they went back, and walked no more with Him. It seemed unto them hard that He said, "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you:" they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, "This is a hard saying." It was they who were hard, not the saying; for unless they had been hard, and not meek, they would have said to themselves, He says not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein. They would have remained with Him, softened, not hard: and would have learned that from Him which they who remained, when the others departed, learned. For when twelve disciples had remained with Him, on their departure, these remaining followers suggested to Him, as if in grief for the death of the former, that they were offended by His words, and turned back. But He instructed them, and says unto them, "It is the Spirit that quickens, but the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." John 6:63 **Understand spiritually what I have said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.** ."" -Augustine, on Psalm 99, section 8.
Here there is no reference to Eucharistic adoration, but rather, simply adoring Christ in His incarnation as Flesh (which is the "earth" he refers to worshiping). One would have to first assume Transubstantiation is true before being able to read Eucharistic Adoration from this passage. This is why you should fully cite your sources.
Here, Augustine even comments that "Understand spiritually what I have said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth." And encourages spiritually understanding the eating and drinking of Christ. In understanding that we eat the flesh Spiritually, we cannot take your equivocation between the sign and the thing signified. We indeed must first worship Christ, then eat Him--and this does not mean worshipping bread, as the bread is not the earth spoken of. As Augustine says in Tractate XXV on John 6:
> "“They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already."
I think the argument really comes down to this: If transubstantiation and some form of consecration exists, who has the authority to distribute and bless that? Can just anybody turn bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ or give it that spiritual presence? How does authority work into this? This is a question about Holy Orders and such. What is your view on that?
Apostolic succession explains all. The apostles laid hands on and appointed successors, so current bishops can prove their lineage. Bishops in turn ordained priests, together with bishops, who were formally priests have the power of consecration ie acting ipso Christi have the power to change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ Jn 6 51-58 ie sacrificial worship. For those who don’t believe, research Eucharistic miracles which science can’t explain
Other than the Orthodox, no other “churches” have sacrificial worship so no church
Only a priest can consecrate the host, not even an angel can do it.
its fun how its says vs while there wasnt much debate and dialogue when it was a monologue XD. But seriously its very helpful
The capability of receiving without faith in defence of transubstantiation is illustrated in Corinthians, where St Paul says” many of you are passing away before your time through partaking without discernment “
So if not the reality then the curse of God .
Hi Gavin, thanks for your videos. I’m wondering about your response to the R Catholic point that John 6:52-71 supports transubstantiation. Fr. Mike Schmitz (amongst other popular catholic representatives) have made the point that Jesus’s followers are astounded at His words (John 6:52). They react asking “how can this be true?” And Jesus does not correct or refute them but reemphasizes the point about his flesh and blood and then some of his disciples even left him over this teaching. The argument by Fr. mike is that Jesus makes clear that this teaching is SO important that he must repeat and therefore emphasize it even if it means his disciples leave him over it. How would you refute this point? Jesus does seem to be pretty clear on the flesh and blood part and transubstantiation is the only interpretation that seems to match that exactly, at least from what I can tell. I’d love to know your thoughts or if there is a video where you address this specific argument please let me know. Thank you so much!
What every one misses about the eucharist, its not the priest who has " the power" to command God, but the alter boy as he decides when to strike the gong!!
I would like to know how the three different points-of-view think about the passage about "Eat and drink judgement on yourself"?
1.Corinthians 11:20
»Therefore when you meet together, *it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper.«*
In other words, when you read 1.Corinthians 11:17-34 in context you will see that the Corinthians did not come together in order to eat or celebrate the Lords Supper, they handled it to be a mere meal and guess what - some were drunk and some hungry. The hungry came to the Lords Supper to fill their stomach and the rich came there to drink more so that they were drunk. Why did the rich not give some to the poor and needy in the SAME CHURCH? You see that they did not act like Christians and therefore forgot why the Lords Supper was instituted by Christ. They ignored the symbolic meaning of the Lords Supper - that is why they ate and drank judgment! It has to do with unbelieve and sin and the pervertion of the Lords Supper. They did not hold this ceremony as the Lord intended it to be held. So the only answer is judgment and chastisement. Read through these 17 verses and you will see that there is no other meaning possible.
@@semper_reformanda I appreciate your answer, but it does nothing to tell me what different groups of Christians believe about this, which is what I was asking. Now I know what you believe, but I don't know if anyone but you believes this (I am not trying to say that I disagree with you either... only that you answered a different question than the one I asked).
@@josephbrandenburg4373 yes, in my view the question about three different points-of-view is already a bit false since you assume there are three possible interpretations. I had several discussions with Roman Catholics and Lutherans and Reformed guys on this topic. The Roman Catholics insert Transsubstantiation into this Corinthian passage - which the context does not support. The Lutheran guys insert Christs physical presence into this Corinthian passage - which the context also does not support. The only interpretation that can be right is the interpretation that is consistent with the text and context itself. And the text itself says a lot. The other two interpretation are more eisegetical while my view is rather exegetical. So this is why I answered your question the way I did it - with my poor English (I am German). So I do hope you got nothing wrong :-)
@@semper_reformanda So you're just gonna double down on it? You're even saying my question was wrong?
I wasn't asking what the correct interpretation was. I want to know what different denominations teach.
Your English is fine, by the way. There's nothing wrong with the way you write 👍
What do you mean by the spiritual presence of a body?
Perfect! 😆
Same as Jesus is the "bread of life."
I heard him, but my older brain was not entirely understanding the difference. Ive only been taught the commenorstive view of the Eucharist, though we were always taught to be respectful and solemn when we took it. I mean what it represents is enough to humble one. But i will study it more.
The Lutheran view of the Eucharist makes the most scriptural sense to me.
Daniel, actually, the Roman Catholic teaching is most Biblical, as it teaches what Jesus Christ teaches, the bread, WHEN BLESSED, "is My Body ", ( Matthew 26:26). The new passover Lamb to be consumed for our salvation! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 As a Lutheran, I can definitely state that Christ is truly present in the bread and the wine - it IS his body and blood because he says so. And it is also bread and wine. We don't try to explain how Christ is present, just that he is. When I celebrate the Holy Eucharist as Scripture clear states, "this is my body", "this is my blood". It simply is. That is the Lutheran position.
@@DavidCotePhotography And the Catholic position is the bread, when Blessed, is " My Body", just as Jesus Christ teaches! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@DavidCotePhotography I can agree with what you wrote provided that to it is added the proviso that when the body and blood of Christ are orally received with the bread and wine, it is not in a “Capernaitic” mode as though His flesh were rent with the teeth and digested like other food, but rather in a supernatural, heavenly mode.
There are several difficulties in Dr. Ortlund's concept of "spiritual presence" which he explains that (by way of analogy to the Incarnation in which Christ is both God and man), the consecrated elements are both Bread and Christ's Body and both Wine and Christ's Blood:
𝗮) one cannot logically forbid the “worshiping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about for adoration” (as most in the Reformed camp do), for to do so is tantamount to saying that worshiping the Son of Man is idolatry.
If worshiping Christ through the consecrated Bread is to idolize the bread, then worshiping God through Jesus is to idolize man (the very reason why modern Judaism rejects the worship of Christ Jesus). On the other hand, if to refuse to worship the Son of Man is to deny the Son of God, then to refuse to worship the Bread and Wine is to deny the objectivity of Real Presence, even if "spiritual", for even if it is argued that Christ's physical Body and Blood is localized in heaven, the fact that he is spiritually present in the Bread and Wine and is so united to the elements that it is comparable to the Incarnation (the unity of the divine and human in one person), then not only is it proper to worship the Bread and the Wine, it becomes absolutely necessary. For even as when sinful men came into contact with the Ark of the Presence died either immediately (2 Sam vj. 6-7) or after some time (1 Sam v-vij), then how much more if an unworthy person comes into contact with the consecrated elements are both Bread and Christ's Body and both Wine and Christ's Blood (1 Cor xj. 23-30).
𝗯) the very opposition to the doctrine of Transubstantiation is based on Materialistic and Empiricist assumptions, i.e., the only "substance" that exists is physical matter, and so by misunderstanding that the change of that would (if followed to its logical conclusion) lead to the denial of the miraculous in general.
What happens is that Dr. Ortlund and others misunderstand Transubstantiation because they think that only physical matter is the only substance, when the Catholic understanding is that physical matter is the mere "accident" of an essential substance which goes beyond mere physicality. So Transubstantiation does not mean a change in the physical properties of matter, the accidents, but a change in the essence of that matter, the substance of it all, but because their implicit Empiricism they cannot really understand the consecrated Bread to be really Christ's Body because "it looks like bread, it tastes like bread, so it remains bread". By misunderstanding Transubstantiation as a change of physical accidents, they go down a philosophical rabbit hole that will lead the heirs of the Reformed tradition to reject miracles as a whole.
And so, by their very conclusions regarding the Eucharist in forbidding the "worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about for adoration", they betray their hidden Materialistic and Empiricist premises which, when their theological heirs like Bultmann and others arrived at the logical conclusion of their initial conclusions, began to disregard miracles as real; indeed, the rejection of the Transubstantiation led to their rejecting the reality of the miraculous nature of the Feeding of the Five Thousand.
𝗰) by saying that 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 believers experience the Real Presence of Christ in the elements means that the "spiritual presence" is not really objectively real but is just a subjective "reality" experienced by the believer.
Again, even as when sinful men came into contact with the Ark of the Presence died either immediately (2 Sam vj. 6-7) or after some time (1 Sam v-vij), then how much more if an unworthy person comes into contact with the consecrated elements are both Bread and Christ's Body and both Wine and Christ's Blood (1 Cor xj. 23-30). This proves that Christ's Body and Blood are truly present (even as Dr Ortlund believes), even for the unworthy communicant, who would not otherwise be culpable of Christ's body and blood or rightfully condemned for failing to recognize the Lord's body. If the unworthy eat only mere bread and drink mere wine (as Dr. Ortlund insists), then the spiritual presence is not really objectively real.
Yeah what he said really made zero sense to me. I've heard that to deny the Eucharist because it is "just bread" easily leads to denying Christ because he was "just a man."
@@truthnotlies Exactly: if one should not worship the Eucharist because it is "just bread", then one should not worship Jesus because he is "just human". If it is idolatry to worship Christ in the Eucharist, then it is also idolatry to worship God in Jesus. And this is what makes Dr. Ortlund contradictory when he claims to believe in the Real Presence, for even a spiritual presence in the bread and wine would merit worship, especially if the spiritual presence is so united to the elements as Dr. Ortlund claims. And so, if Dr. Ortlund really believed in the Real Presence, then he cannot claim that experiencing it is only subjective and not objectively real. If the unworthy eat only mere bread and drink mere wine (as Dr. Ortlund insists), then the spiritual presence is not really objectively real.
In others words, the Eucharist is not "just bread" and not "just wine", it is the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and Christ is not just a human being of flesh and blood, he is God the Son and the Eternal Word, and so what gives life is not just mere flesh and blood of a mere human being, but God made flesh and blood but remaining divine.
Indeed, if Our Lord Jesus Christ was just a mere human of flesh and blood, then indeed "the flesh profiteth nothing", but Christ himself said, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me" and "It is the spirit that quickeneth", and so what makes Christ's flesh and blood salvific is because it is the flesh and blood of God himself, because "the Word was God" and "the Word was made flesh", and so it is divine flesh and divine blood.
Even if Dr. Ortlund is correct, and the Real Presence in the Eucharist is merely spiritual (which it isn't), then worshipping the Eucharist would still not be idolatry because "the consecrated elements are both Bread and Christ's Body and both Wine and Christ's Blood".
@@Jiko-ryu thanks for these well thought out responses. I have been researching and came to this conclusion; I have been going to a Protestant church but can no longer consider myself Protestant.
Hi Gavin. What about the Eucharistic miracles the RC church have investigated where the host contained heart tissue and blood…? If true it changes everything.
they cannot believe in that and in Marian apparitions. Its too Catholic.
Luther: This is my body!
Zwingli: You keep using that phrase. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Heiser's naked Bible podcast on "The Lord's Supper" worth a listen
He's one in a million at OT stuff but I find his NT stuff doesn't live up.
The transformation into the Divine Reality can never be a matter of time and space. But from our human perspective, the moment we come together as a hierarchy of communion to celebrate Christ's Sacrifice is a sacred moment and the species of bread and wine brought for consecration is the place of encounter with Christ.
The Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation is not meant to give you all the minute details about what, where and when, but to help us protect the Mystery, Christ bequeathed to us as the Memorial of His Dying and Rising Presence.
"This is my body.” Mt 26:26
“This is my body” does not mean “this is my body”
Where there is spiritual presence, there is bodily presence. As above, so below. What is the substance if not spirit? The real problem with transubstantiation, is that it claims that the substance of the bread has to yield. But it doesn't, it remains bread, and it is the body of Christ. Fully bread, fully body.
Are you Lutheran or something?
Ostensibly.
Christ has ascended to Heaven and presently sits at the right hand of God. Yet He says "Lo, I am with you, even to the end of the age". How can He be with us here when He has ascended into heaven? Has He returned? No, but by an incomprehensible mystery, He is truly with us Spiritually, while bodily in Heaven
@@scarletibis4458 We are His limbs, truly.
Spiritual presence is always incarnational. Reality is not split into two separate things called heaven and earth any more than The Father and The Son are two separate beings.
I think spiritual is the same as the substantive, thus the original reformed view properly read is exactly the same as the Roman Catholic one, it's just language that confuses.
It's only in modern, post-cartesian times, there is the notion of a disembodied heaven, and an earth sort of going about it's business on its own, and not as two sides of the same coin.
A theoretical problem is the denial of the ability for the essence/spirit of both bread and God to simultaneously be present. But I don't think it's detrimental, as long as the eating of the body and drinking of the blood is embodied in a good and wholesome way. The belief does not trump the reality of His actual presence, as long as the spirit of the act is to seek Him and His actual presence among us, in our lives, here and now.
The RC view of God's remaining presence in the bread outside the act is to me a bit weird though, as to me the act IS the embodiment of the giving, and how it is in this life fulfilled, and the how we communicate the broken body of Christ to the congregation. The act of participating in the meal as if it is truly how the body is communicated, is what makes it how the body is communicated, is the how it happens.
His body is us, because he is in heaven/above/inside, and through the act of us somehow coming together to partake of His sacrifice, however our language expresses its working. To have a body IS to be present. Our current human bodies are the way we are currently present, but there are different kinds of bodies.
We are currently as much in heaven as in earth, and this will always be true. But to what extent our heavenly qualities (often construed as internal or psychological) are receptive to communication with God, affects to what extent we are with Him in heaven, and thusly to what extent we are able to be His body and be vessels for His good work.
@@MortenBendiksen I agree with you, I think that it's a language issue, and that the Lutheran position is the same as this one (though I disagree on catholic) but they get caught up in the language. He is truly present, His body is there with the bread, His blood is there in the cup. But HOW is where division happens, the rhetoric of spiritual presence articulates the mystery of how He can be bodily ascended into heaven, yet by the Spirit, the bread is "brought up" to be one with His body, the cup is "brought up" to be one with His blood. Therefore we touch and taste He who is in heaven, while remaining here on earth. Thereby receiving sanctifying Grace and strength because He is there
Saint Ambrose De Mysteriis (On the Mysteries. ) chapter 9
“Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ” (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).
Jesus said in John 6:63 that it was his Holy Spirit in the Eucharist. John 6:68 Peter said that it is for Eternal life to save the unsaved.
Is the spiritual presence the same as consubstantiation?
It is not, there's some subtle differences. It is in-between transubstantiation and spiritual presence
While I hold to the reformed understanding I would say that transubstantiation makes more sense then consubstantiation.
In John 6 Jesus said that it is the Holy Spirit in the bread not real flesh.
Peter says it is for the Eternal life ( of unsaved people)
The Holy Spirit has ben put on objects in old testament and on people. The only purpose of the Eucharist is to save. People who are saved can do the Rememberance version.
Should those who haven't made a profession of faith in Christ partake of the Lords Supper? It seems on any view that shouldn't matter. But I know many churches that don't allow that
Why so much ambiguity in the NT that scholars are still arguing about this and other facets of the faith 2000 years later. Obviously, for one belief to be true, the others have to be wrong.
Spiritual representation is naturally ambiguous.
Jesus is not literally a lamb and we are not literally in Christ, so the the it's obviously Spiritual.
@@elvisisacs3955 no one is drinking blood in Passover... the Lamb is obviously symbolic.
@@matthewbroderick6287 there's nothing biblical about drinking blood unless you're a Roman Pagan practicing Canaanite Sacrificial traditions.
@@matthewbroderick6287 it's not literally "no life", it's spiritual life, just as it's spiritual blood and flesh. Stay in context. Be honest with yourself.
@@matthewbroderick6287 no one was drinking blood, it is spiritual, not literal, and Jesus is a spiritual Lamb, not literal. Stop lying to yourself. Leviticus *17:12** Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood.*
@@matthewbroderick6287 stop being dishonest. *This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. “Truly I tell you, I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.* fruit of the vine, spiritual, kingdom of God, spiritual... blood is clearly spiritual.
Be honest with yourself.
I've been looking into the phenomenon of "substance" to understand what is the conflict even about, and I'm pretty sure, after spending at least several hundred hours on the subject, that it's pure, distilled nonsense. There is no such thing as substance, it does not exist in any measurable sense in the real world, nor does it exist theoretically in the Bible, it is impossible to separate it from the accidents in any theological or literal sense. If the accidents remain unchanged completely, substance can't be changed, it's impossible with any other example you can think of, both inside, and outside the Bible. I'm pretty sure all Catholic who aren't philosophically educated actually believe the exact same thing reformed Christians believe - that Christ is present in the sacrament spiritually, not literally. Even stating that in Catholic theology Christ is present in the Eucharist "literally" or "actually" or "physically" or anything like that, is an oxymoron, is an impossibility, an absurdity, by the dictionary definition of these words. If something is literal, it is accidentally there. If something is actual, it is accidentally there. If something is physical, it is accidentally there. There are no words that make these absurd distinctions between something's inner, true nature, and the physical, material reality of things. The only thing you can suggest is the SPIRITUAL presence of something. The same terminology that's used for the human soul, for the presence of Holy Spirit, and for anything supernatural happening in the theological sense. After talking to a dozen theologians and even professors from catholic universities, I'm absolutely convinced that all Catholics actually believe Christ is spiritually present in their sacrament - nobody actually believes he is REALLY there. They just use different words and put a different emphasis on his presence, because of the philosophical background of the word "substance" and because of their education. The beliefs are all the same in actuality. Catholics do not believe they really do consume blood in any literal sense. All of them will tell you the sacrifice is un-bloody. The blood ISN'T really there, in the literal sense. Different words, the same exact belief. It's probably the biggest and most silly misunderstanding in history of theology. It's arguing over nothing.
I have to comment because this is the best comment I've ever seen on the internet! I applaud you 👏👏👏 and thank you for this delightful surprise. It brought me so much joy that I had a bit of a laughing fit 😂❤
I agree with you by the way it's like two color blind kids arguing over a crayon 🖍️ is it red or really red and they're both red. It's also the same crayon. It's the color blindness causing the issue.
I also agree substance might not exist. Everything we consider "solid" or of the" physical" realm is 99.9% empty space. 😂 including us.
Christ is spiritually present at the Lords Suppert. He feeds our spirits not our physical bodys
“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 [A.D. 110]).
“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” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Note the date: Year 110. On top of that St. Ignatius of Antioch was an Apostolic Father--a disciple of one of the Disciple, John, I believe. It would be impossible for him to pick up the 'traditions of men' from an Apostle.
Is there anything that Jesus or the Bible says that you do believe?
I’m beginning to see a pattern here.
Maybe you should start posting videos titled what Jesus and the Bible say vs what they really mean according to me.
Just keep watching Gavins videos Charlie, loosen your defense of the tradition you've been taught and hone your own reading comprehension skills.
@@critical_mass6453 I think you have it backwards the only way to agree with the docs videos is to stop reading the Bible he contradicts it’s teachings too often. What verse do you think I missed where Jesus or the Bible deny a true bodily presence?
Everyone has arguments from silence. Some just have it down to a science.
@@critical_mass6453 yeah, Charlie just pick you a tradition, new, old, and be happy like the rest of us. All authority has been given to every denomination equally.
@@kevinmc62 NOW I GET IT!!! This whole time I thought I was supposed to believe Jesus and trust the church he said to will guide me into all truth. You guys, the doc, and protestants mean I’m supposed to read scripture and come up with my own ideas as long as I believe in Jesus I don’t have to believe Jesus. THANKS GUYS!! I’m starting my own church it will be great you guys should join me we can come up with all kinds of doctrines to suit our desires. 🤔😈🤡
It’s the Passover meal which Yeshua was pre-ordained to be representative of, fulfil and embody in His sacrificial death. So, its the Passover meal which was meant to continue but with this truth now known and celebrated.
The church having knowingly and wickedly expunged and vilified the Jews then became exclusively gentile and have made Passover (like Shabbat) into a Sunday Greco/Roman influenced liturgy.
I feel you just talked and didnt say much.
It sounds like the Spiritual Presence requires belief to make Christ present in the Eucharist. Like as if the belief is the cause of the phenomenon.
As opposed to Transubstantiation where Christ becomes present on his own whether or not we believe. Yes we say the substance changes, but the substance we are talking about is a spiritual substance, not material. Catholics still teach that the Eucharist is not fully efficacious without corresponding discernment.
Hmmm…I’ll stick with the explanation of one of the greatest thinkers in the history of mankind (Thomas Aquinas).
Transubstantiation is garbage.1John 4:2 Tells us that Jesus came in a real body. Came means in the past. And in a real body means that Jesus was a real physical human being just like us. John is telling us that Jesus was visible to our senses. John also tells us to not deviate from this teaching. John wrote this in90 a.d many years after Jesus died. John did not tell anyone that Jesus was in the local catholic church every sunday in bread and wine. Catholics have changed the word of God and added something to the bible. If Jesus were the bread and wine then John is a liar because John makes it clear that Jesus was in a physical body not bread and wine. And if John is a liar then why do catholics have a bible? Why follow the bible if the bible lies. Because John is not a liar, that means catholics are liars. 1John3:6 tells us that sinners dont know God or understand Him. So catholics cant even teach anyone about God because they don't know God.