This has opened up a whole new appreciation for the eucharist for me. Never knew how prevalent real presence was historically among Protestants before I watched that Gospel Simplicity discussion. Had been contemplating it for years, but your video really confirmed what I’d been suspecting-that evangelicals today have downplayed what is really happening in the sacraments. Thank God for your ministry Gavin. Reading Theological Retrieval right now.
I recommend a paperback by Puritan Paperbacks, published by Banner of Truth called The Lord's Supper by Thomas Watson (referenced by Gavin in his previous short but illuminating vid on this subject). I was amazed to discover Protestants in the early church held a much higher/holier view of Communion than the 'mere symbolism' view held by most Protestant churches today - it was a real eye-opener!
@@caroldonaldson5936 I've only recently delved into this subject myself after watching a video with Francis Chan talking about the eucharist. At first glance I thought his argument was making sense "Well they've been doing this for 1500 years, there's tradition and that and should be looked into and highly considered", but then when I really delved into the passover for the Jews at that time and what communion was representing I was actually more convinced that it was purely symbolic. tbh it doesn't diminish the importance of it. I've also noticed personally that Roman Catholics seem to have a bit of a chip on their shoulder as if they're the oldest and wisest. In reality it seems like they don't know the history before them. (Though all this study has definitely given me a higher level of intimacy in our creator and his sacrifice)
Much of Protestantism has shifted a long way from its Catholic origins and even from some of the core beliefs of its major founders. The mega churches, for example, bear almost no resemblance to historic Protestantism.
Thankfully most Reformed Baptists, particularly those in communion with the Holy Baptist See under the chair of St. Bubba in the Atlantican, maintains the tradition of Eucharistic adoration
@@grandmarnier3746 I really like this kind of discussion as a Catholic. Thank you Gavin for bringing this up and teaching more about the prevalence of the True Presence! Even when I was reading about different reformer theology, I was surprised to read that they defended it. I would consider that Communion should not be conflated with Eucharist, and that a lot of it is interwoven and requires well... A lot of study in my estimation heh. Would love to hear from you! Pax :)
@@aka.yehoshua it's the teaching of the Catholic church. No protestant reformer after Luther claimed they could validly consecrate a host. Nor did they want to , esp the Baptist who walked away from the sacraments altogether. So how pray tell do they claim they'd had the Eucharist all along?
@@aka.yehoshua Can anyone just pick up a slice of bread, say "this is my body" and have Jesus fully present? Around the end of the first century, and within the lifetime of the Apostle John, Ignatius of Antioch makes this statement is found in his letter to the Smyrnaeans (chapter 8): "Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
Fascinating to hear about a historic teaching of the Baptist tradition. The Eucharist was what compelled me to be baptized; I hope all the Traditions become united under Christ.
Thank you for this, it's very interesting for me as an Anglo-Catholic priest to see a Baptist view of the Real Presence as you understand it. I do believe it's scriptural and can be found in Patristic writings. You present a very engaging and interesting view of each topic you speak on. I have enjoyed your content.
I agree that your dialogue with Dr. Brett Salkeld was one of the best! What a pleasure it was to watch the conversation between two knowledgeable scholars who share the same irenic approach yet maintain their respective traditions faithfully. A great example for us all.
Dr. Ortland, anglican Catholic here. Thank you so much for this message, I tune into your videos, so that I can understand the reformed view well without straw-manning the theology behind it. Please continue to speak on this!
Whoa I did not see this coming. At first I was like, "how does this not inevitably lead you to be Catholic?" But as I thought about that question it gave me a new appreciation for your beliefs and commitment to historical accuracy. This is really intriguing.
Why would you think that? There's no logical connection between believing in the real presence and believing in (say) the Papacy, or apostolic succession.
Yes, it is Catholic. All of the early church Fathers were Catholic too. All of the 12 Apostles are buried in Catholic churches throughout the northern hemisphere, Thousands of cities throughout the world are named after Catholic Saints; San Francisco, San Antonio, Santa Rosa, St. John, St James, etc. There are recorded documents that can trace the current Pope to St. Peter, the 1st Pope. Please research these things. Everything we do in the Catholic church is very Biblical and very very old. All these things we do in Catholicism that seem very odd or different, come from Judaism. Christ and his disciples were practicing Jews and like Gavin said, "the Eucharist has to be a sacrifice." That is what the Jews did, offered sacrifice to God. The old Covenant of offering animals was no longer needed since our Lord laid down his life. But he did give us a new covenant in the upper room. The lamb of God which we receive in the Eucharist, just as his disciples did after his resurrection are that of the resurrected Christ. We are not re-crucifying our Lord. I love Gavin because he searches for the truth.
*WHY BELIEVE IN THE REAL PRESENCE IN THE EUCHARIST* _Because Jesus spoke plainly and literally on three separate occasions._ 1. "Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." (John 6:53-55) 2. "And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” (Lk 22:19) 3. "For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes." 27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. (1 Co 11:23-27) Not once did Jesus say He was speaking symbolically. Not to the Jews. Not to His disciples. Not to Paul. Not once.
If you're catholic, imagine actually trusting in that body and blood fully for your atonement. Works are evidence of the state of our faith and whether or not our faith is in the right thing. (For example... our works will show when we trust in our own works/obedience rather than trusting in Jesus and our faith leading to delighting in obedience. For example... believing we are set free to sin will lead to no fruit being produced. Both of these things are going to show fruit of dead faith.) Good works are not our response to God's grace. They are what God's grace causes in us when He gives us a new heart and the Holy Spirit.
@@evanbiter2138 you should learn more about the Catholic position on this matter rather than impugning my faith based in a biased uninformed belief about it.
Hi Gavin, thank you so much for this video. It is incredibly liberating to hear that somebody like yourself believes in the Eucherist. I've personally been compelled towards this of late, but have been uncertain how to proceed. I've seen Francis Chan come to this position recently but it felt to me that it then became a fait accompli that one must then look to Orthodoxy, as per Hank Hanegraaff, as Protestantism seemed to me to be irreconcilable with the Eucharist in the form you've referred to. I grew up in the Baptist church, and a lot in the Orthodox church is difficult to accept, such as veneration of icons, so hearing this from somebody like yourself, is really powerful. This, and my recent move to Partial Preterist, both affirmed by you, carry a lot of weight. God bless you for sharing your knowledge. 🙏
Thanks for this video, Dr. Ortlund. We can't thank God enough for using you to remind us of His grace and truth in every video. God bless you and your family abundantly, exceedingly.
I love you, man! You're doing a fantastic job. I have quarreled with a baptist exorcist, who said I could not be freed from the demons until I disbelieve that Christ is the really present in the Eucharist. That thing hit me to the core. When I listened to him ,and avoided the Catholic church, I felt worse than any before. Each time I asked for God's guidance, he would always lead me back to the Eucharist for healing(and what is the most important- developping a personal relationship with him through it)
As a cradle Catholic who’s had questions about the faith, I think we’re told from an early age that Protestants believe that it nearly represents Christ’s body & blood. Lately, I’ve been learning more and I am grateful to see videos like this.
Unfortunately the vast majority of Protestants, or Evangelicals anyways, do not believe in the Real Presence, including most modern Baptists. Lutherans and Anglicans still hold to the real presence, but since they're Protestant, many people don't know that they do either. I have had Anglican family members who didn't realize that Anglicans believed in the Real Presence sadly enough. I believe that it is an essential doctrine to Christianity, but so many people don't realize it which is very sad to see.
Language is such a funny thing. When you read "represents" you think of the symbolic/memorialist view. When I read it, I read it as "re-PRESENTS", and I get the real presence view. I don't think saying that the bread and wine "represents" the body and blood is the issue. It is the claim that the Eucharist is a mere remembrance that is problematic. It shifts the focus to OUR remembering Christ (an act that we do) and away from what Christ is doing for us (i.e. giving Himself to us in and through the Sacrament). We do remember in the Eucharist, but that is only the effect of Christ coming to us in a real way through the Sacrament itself.
In the last 15-20 years, there seems to have been a shift in the way most Protestants approach certain apologetic and theological issues. I believe that they have been adapting to some of our stronger arguments we have been presenting in the last few decades. I think The Real Presence is one area that this is happening. Granted, many people still dismiss it outright, but nowadays I see Protestants entertain a version of that in a way that would have been unimaginable in the 90’s.
@@jebbush2527 I’ll give them credit where credits is due. Their issues become less about grace and sacraments and more about apostolic succession and the necessity of the ordained priesthood.
I'm Eastern Orthodox but I'm glad to know that there are Baptist traditions that recognize the real presence as well, albeit for different reasons. I was previously unaware of that. To my way of thinking all denominations should regard the Eucharist (Lord's Supper) as not only the central aspect of liturgy but the paramount sacrement of Christian life.
I am currently in the Baptist Church and cannot tell you how long I have waited for someone to say this. The real presence is so essential for the life of the church. Thank you.
Isn't the real presence the Holy Spirit? The same Holy Spirit who convicts the world of sin, draws mankind to a relationship with Him, leads all believers into God's righteousness.
@@joepromedio While the Holy Spirit is present, what is being alluded to here is the spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This he promised when he said to the disciples that this is "his body."
@@jonathangermain4143 the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not biblical. The presence of Christ were two or three Gather in his name is biblical. Then, there's literally no discussion Beyond that. Everything else is a man-made tradition that's absolute nonsense
Hey Gavin, A few topics I would love you to cover at some point in the vein of theological triage. -Gay marriage and how we should view Christians who accept it and are perhaps in one themselves -Abortion and how we should similarly view Christians who are pro choice and would even willingly have one performed -Biblical Unitarianism -Hebrew Roots and people verging on the sin of the Judaizers -Different views on hell i.e Annihilationism and Universalism and support/challenges for each view and dangers of holding the latter Granted these are all very difficult topics but I can’t think of anyone better to cover them :) Thanks for all you do!
Thank you Gavin, having grown up in evangelical and Pentecostal churches, the Eucharist was more or less neglected part of worship, nominally once a month or even less. I’ve now joined an Anglican Church and I love the reverence and anticipation that is fitting for the Eucharist, I think there is the real presence of Christ, although in a mysterious way, we truly become one with Christ.
For many centuries, communion was also rare for Catholics. The idea that communion had to be partaken of dozens of times a year is a recent innovation.
@@joeoleary9010 that's not true. Catholics have always offered communion EVERY Sunday! After Christ resurrection,, the following Sunday the apostles gathered and broken bread and ever since that Sunday we have gathered to receive the body and blood that's happened for 2000 years
@@Compulsive-Elk7103 I think you'll find people were offered the host but not the chalice for many centuries. The Council of Trent taught that when we receive either the host or from the chalice we are receiving the fullness of Jesus’ body, blood, soul, and divinity. Receiving both species is not required to receive the fullness of the sacrament. It's interesting that during pandemics (the Spanish flu, the HIV crisis as well as the more recent Covid one) many chose not to receive from the chalice, knowing that their receipt of the Eucharist was not compromised.
Thanks Dr. Ortlund. I love it when you bring up Chemnitz. Pushing against a memorial view is much needed in our context. The Eucharist is Gospel not law.
This is fascinating. Thanks for uploading this. I also particularly enjoyed the dialogue you and Brett Salkeld had as well; it was good for me to see “principled ecumenism”, as you put it, on display.
There’s only two churches that have maintained this for thousands of years. The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. Where was the baptist church 1500 years ago?
Gavin, I hope you see this and have time to respond! Some concerns I have about real presence: (1) If Christ is somehow present in the Eucharist in a special way, does this have any implications about God's omnipresence? Does belief in the Real Presence pose the same kind of danger as relics, where a person can be lead to believe that they must go to a certain place or perform a certain ritual in order to be closer to Jesus? This seems concerning. (2) Is the early witness really meaningful? When Christ told his disciples to beware the leaven of the Pharisees, they were worried they had forgotten the bread. Jesus regularly spoke in metaphor and symbol, and his disciples had a habit of interpreting him too literally. It isn't surprising that the early fathers would make a similar mistake with the Eucharist. (3) If the Eucharist is miraculous, why is it different from all the other miracles? When Jesus turned water into wine, it (presumably) looked, smelled, and tasted like wine. When he rose from the dead, his disciples recognized him (at times) by his look, sound, and touch. These miracles can be verified as miracles by observing them. When the Eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ....it looks the same. Perhaps this concern only applies to more transubstantiation-ish views, but it still seems concerning to me that the bread and wine should be seen as special when by all possible observations they are not. Real Presence was actually one of the biggest issues that kept be from joining the Eastern Orthodox church! I admittedly have not done much research, but my evangelical gut keeps me skeptical about it. I would love to hear your response or at least get a good resource for addressing these concerns! Thanks for all you do!
I feel the same way. Almost every time the pharisees mistook what Jesus was saying literally when it was meant to be understood spiritually. I don't see how the bread and wine are any different. They even question it in John like the woman at the well with the living water. That's why Jesus said not as your father's ate of the bread because that was legit food..
I'm not Gavin, but a protestant inquirer into Orthodoxy. In answer to #3 above (why does it look like bread), you could ask the same thing about Christ's incarnation: Why does he look exactly like a human being. In fact, the apostles testified that He didn't just look like flesh, He was flesh, and they touched him. "For we walk by faith, not by sight." Same answer for #1, basically. Christ is God and Man. He can be both omnipresent and locally defined, simultaneously. It does mean, however, that being excluded from Communion is a serious church discipline.
People with CLOSE Hearts and Minds never wanted to HEAR the Completed Written Biblical TRUTH and resort to either CURSING Violently or ACCUSING someone of LIES... Christ said, "Blessed are you when people INSULT you, PERSECUTE you, and FALSELY ACCUSE and SAY all kinds of EVIL against you because of ME (Christ Jesus)... REJOICE and be GLAD, because Great is your REWARD in Heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the Prophets who were before you."... (ref. Matt. 5:11-12)... Facts and Truth of the Matters, Biblically and logically speaking... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen...
Thank you Dr. Ortlund for this eye-opening video! I've been a protestant since my conversion almost 4 years ago and I always thought the concept of transubstantiation was not applicable to a protestant view of theology. But lately, I've been investigating Catholic theology as I come from a Roman Catholic background (I'm Italian, so despite all the theological differences, I must admit I still tend to feel that bond with the Roman Catholic tradition which is deeply rooted in my country) and as a result, I've started questioning my view of the Lord's Supper as a mere "commemoration". Indeed, John 6:53 says: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.". In the light of this, how could I keep ignoring the issue? Thank God this video came out! I didn't know that baptists had a different opinion on this topic... You shed a light on a very serious issue for every Christian and I can't wait to read further and deepen my knowledge about it! Thank you again, Dr. Ortlund... God Bless!!
Fair question. Speaking at least for the Baptist tradition, In his Amidst Us Our Beloved Stands, Michael Haykin argues its a 19th century development and explores various factors.
@@TruthUnitesThen who can administer the Lords supper? Can you be in a church that says it’s to remember Christ but blv in yourself that it is real presence?
It´s not a 19th century tradition but straight from the ECFs and the reformation time. It´s for instance found in Clement of Alexandria who says the bread and wine are symbols of the Lord´s body. Likewise, the 16th century famous Anabaptist Menno Simons said "In the first place, we must take heed that we do not, as some, who make the visible, perishable bread and wine, the Lord's real flesh and blood. To believe this, is contrary to nature, reason and Scripture"
Being a Catholic, I appreciate this video, especially after the National Eucharistic Congress held in Indianpolis in July. I found this video enlightening from a Protestant point of view, and appreciate the research you did.
I’m at a crossroad on this. I attend a church that has a strong memorialist view, whenever someone prayers before communion, they always drive the point home that it’s a symbol. I believe the eucharist is very important and should be a central part of Christian fellowship, however, it’s hard to find a baptist/reformed church that does weekly communion and believes in a real presence. I’m considering moving to a different church but my options are very limited 😩
This was a major driving factor in changing to Anglicanism. I can disagree with a lot of my brothers and sisters and still happily commune with them, but the Eucharist was one of those issue that requires full church unity in, and outside of Lutheran or Anglican churches it’s really hard to have a weekly and seriously taken Eucharist.
I’m in exactly the same boat! My pastor says stuff like, “there’s nothing mystical happening here. We Christians aren’t any better off for eating this. It doesn’t forgive our sins. It’s just to remind us of what Jesus did for us.” Like, way to throw a wet blanket on the whole thing! 😑
We must therefore consider the Eucharist as: - thanksgiving and praise to the Father; - the sacrificial memorial of Christ and his Body; - the presence of Christ by the power of his word and of his Spirit. The Eucharist, the sacrament of our salvation accomplished by Christ on the cross, is also a sacrifice of praise in thanksgiving for the work of creation. In the Eucharistic sacrifice the whole of creation loved by God is presented to the Father through the death and the Resurrection of Christ. Through Christ the Church can offer the sacrifice of praise in thanksgiving for all that God has made good, beautiful, and just in creation and in humanity. The Eucharist is a sacrifice of thanksgiving to the Father, a blessing by which the Church expresses her gratitude to God for all his benefits, for all that he has accomplished through creation, redemption, and sanctification. Eucharist means first of all "thanksgiving." The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of praise by which the Church sings the glory of God in the name of all creation. This sacrifice of praise is possible only through Christ: he unites the faithful to his person, to his praise, and to his intercession, so that the sacrifice of praise to the Father is offered through Christ and with him, to be accepted in him. The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the making present and the sacramental offering of his unique sacrifice, in the liturgy of the Church which is his Body. In all the Eucharistic Prayers we find after the words of institution a prayer called the anamnesis or memorial. In the sense of Sacred Scripture the memorial is not merely the recollection of past events but the proclamation of the mighty works wrought by God for men.In the liturgical celebration of these events, they become in a certain way present and real. This is how Israel understands its liberation from Egypt: every time Passover is celebrated, the Exodus events are made present to the memory of believers so that they may conform their lives to them. In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ's Passover, and it is made present the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present. "As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which 'Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed' is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out." Because it is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: "This is my body which is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood." In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit.
As a Catholic I am glad to hear that you are spreading at least some doctrine one the real presence in protestantism Your channel name is correct Truth does Unite
Love your work and your spirit, Gavin, but this I find unconvincing. 1) The last supper was linked to Passover. ( Yes I know: debates on the chronology of holy week.) The Passover meal was symbolic. Nobody thought that by eating bitter herbs Jews were somehow actually experiencing slavery in Egypt. 2) Nobody reading the gospels thinks that Jesus is literally a gate or a road or a grapevine. The gospels are full of metaphor. We don't have a record of the exact ( presumably Aramaic) words Jesus used at the last supper. I'm thus puzzled by the certainty many display in the non symbolic link between the elements and the body and blood of the incarnate Christ in the upper room. This isn't meant to be abrasive. I value my Christian brothers and sisters who hold 'higher' views than mine on this doctrine. May the Lord bless and enlighten us all.
No one who took the first passover meal would have agreed that it was symbolic. Their houses were truly saved by the blood of the lamb and their bodies were truly fed and given strength when they ate that lamb.
@@brentonstanfield5198 Thanks Brenton. You're right about the first Passover being much more than symbolic. I was referring to the meal which Jesus & the disciples ate in the upper room 1200 years later. There, I believe, the herbs were symbolic of the bitterness of slavery in Egypt, not an actual experience of slavery in Egypt. In that context I find the most natural reading of the link between the body of the incarnate Christ and the elements to be symbolic.
@@derekmchardy8730 - I would agree that the passover meal for the Jews in the 1st century was a remembrance of the 1st passover. After all, they were not the ones delivered out of bondage in Egypt. In addition, that first passover was a proto-type of the true passover, the true deliverance that comes through Christ. However, we are the ones delivered from sin and death by Christ's death. We are the ones sustained by the life Jesus gave for us. We are not just "remembering" what happened 2000 years ago. We are participating in Christ's death. Is the Eucharist a remembrance. Yes! It is at least that. But we are also Israel, being delivered from bondage, and we eat the Lamb that was sacrificed for us and draw strength from His body and are saved by His blood. Accordingly, the Eucharist is a remembrance and so much more... and for all of Christian history, the church has held to that. Love you brother, and my whole goal is to deepen your affection for Christ.
@@brentonstanfield5198 Thanks Brenton. I'm happy to agree that celebration of the Lord's Supper is more than just memorial. Of course the Lord is present. If we believe Jesus's words when he gave the great commission he is always with us. He is always there where two or three gather in His name. He is there when His word is read and expounded. In partaking of communion we reaffirm the role of Jesus broken body and shed blood in our salvation. We reaffirm our oneness with our fellow believers, also saved by Christ's body & blood. The love of Christ for His church and the benefits we receive due to His death for us are all displayed in three dimensions. Beyond that I'm not sure biblically what 'real presence' means. Incidentally the above is significantly informed by my reading of Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology. Grudem, like Gavin and yourself, is a Calvinist. Can I just commend the polite and gracious tone of your comments on Leighton Flowers' Soteriology 101 channel. Soteriology would be another topic where I'd disagree with Gavin and yourself, but that's for another day... God bless you brother.
This was great! You and Trent Horn should do another debate, but in an Oxford Union style where it's you two against two memorialists. I think a lot of people would enjoy seeing a Baptist and a Catholic on the same side of the table, that is if we can find two people brave enough to take you both on.
“are we not to regard the Lord as preserving consistency in the use of **figurative** speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock?… Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by **symbols,** when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; ” describing distinctly by **metaphor** the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,-of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.” Clement of Alexandria 150-215 AD
St. Paul said, "DO NOT GO BEYOND/EXCEED WHAT IS WRITTEN" (ref. 1 Corin. 4:6)... or else, if you do, God's CURSE (anathema/eternal damnation) will fall upon you." (ref. Gal. 1:8)... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
Gavin, I'm concerned about one particular thing that seems to warn me off of the idea that the bread has become Jesus. (I don't know if "real presence" necessarily entails this, but this is how it comes across to me.) It seems to me that the most widely worshipped false Christ in the world is the Eucharist. In Catholicism, there is the practice known as the adoration of the blessed sacrament, where the eucharistic wafer is mounted on a monstrance, and this monstrance is placed on the altar to be worshipped as if it were Christ himself. This is justified by the assertion that Christ is in the wafer, that the wafer has become Christ. And they even cite eucharistic miracles as if the miracles affirm this. But Jesus warned us not to believe this: Matthew 24:24-26 24 For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand. 26 So, if they say to you, ‘Look, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out. *If they say, ‘Look, he is in the inner rooms [tameiois-'storage chambers'],’ do not believe it.* . Do you see this odd phrase, "If they say 'Look, he (singular) is in the inner rooms (plural), do not believe it."? Why would a singular Christ be in plural inner rooms? Jesus explicitly told us not to believe this assertion. Yet this is what Catholicism asserts, that Jesus is in the church tabernacles, the innermost room of the church, the storage chamber for the consecrated hosts. When passing before a tabernacle, Catholics make the sign of the cross and genuflect, as if to acknowledge Christ in the tabernacle. And Jesus even warned us that false Christs, of which this is one, would perform signs and wonders to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. Eucharistic miracles are a deception directed not toward unbelievers, but toward believers. All this seems to serve this notion that Christ is in the bread and wine. If Jesus is telling us not to believe that he is in these inner rooms, what implication does this have on the notion that Jesus is present in the eucharistic elements stored in the tabernacles? To me, this says that he is not there. But if he is not in the consecrated eucharist, what does this say about the notion of the 'real presence' of Christ in the eucharist?
I think it is more than a bit of a stretch to say that Matthew 24:24-26 is referring to the Eucharist. I don't think it is possible to read it that way in the context of the whole chapter. Jesus is explaining to them what will take place before his second coming. Matthew 24:5 says, "For many will come in my name saying, I am Christ. And they will seduce many." The Eucharist does not audibly say "I am Christ." Our Lord is referring to men that will claim to be Him in the end times, it has nothing to do with the Eucharist whatsoever.
I still second the request for an answer to this. The question as to why, if He is physically and spiritually there, do we not all fall on our faces before this bread and wine and sing praises to it? Why don't we do the perfectly reasonable action of taking it home and putting in a place of honor in our own homes? I don't know if this bit of Matthew is conclusive one way or the other, but why are we not at least as consistent as the memorialists here. They say it's a symbol. They treat it like a symbol.
Our entire worship in the Mass is adoration We go up in line to receive and after reception are on our knees, heads bowed reflecting on His indwelling within us. It is the intent within, that cannot be judged by outward appearances. How can ww receive if others are laying down before us?. We have strict rules called rubrics. Even the priest has strict training on use of arms and hands, etc.
I actually had a 'conversation' or an attempt at one with somebody online yesterday about this topic. They responded to another person's question about the Real Presence with an accusation about it being a Catholic thing and Catholics are this and that and the next thing whereas 'the Protestant view' was a pure symbolic view which was the only scriptural view. I responded by pointing out that there is no 'Protestant view' on the vast majority of subjects, communion included, that he was holding up the American evangelical/general Baptist view as 'the Protestant view'. Historic Protestantism has always held to a literal Real Presence, merely in different ways. Lutherans have a literal-yet-insubstantial view, Presbyterians have a literal-yet-spiritual view etc. His response was to accuse every member of those denominations of heresy and rejecting scriptural authority so they weren't even Christian anyway so they didn't count, which I assume is a reference to the powerful liberal wings within mainline Protestant churches in the modern day. I was going to respond that there are various branches within these denominations and liberal and conservative wings within each branch arguing furiously over various topics and that even regardless of that I had been speaking about the foundational beliefs of those churches dating back to the Reformation era, as in the beliefs held and promoted by Luther, Calvin and Knox themselves, but he had blocked me and seemingly banned any replies (although it would show up as a blanket ban for me anyway as a blocked account).
As a Catholic most of these people are fundamentalists who freak out at anything close to catholic not realizing that Lutheran and Anglicans have a close interpretation of the lord’s supper close to Catholics and Orthodox Christians
Dr. Ortlund, if you are correct that participation in the Eucharist brings us an intimacy and Union with Christ - a mystical and spiritual bond - and the Eucharist is the pinnacle expression of this… If all that is true, and the Catholic Church got this right - and the early church was essentially unanimous on this - then isn’t that enough of a reason to want to have an authoritative Tradition that DOESNT allow any generation to veer from this teaching?
Our concern is that the Roman Catholic church has not gotten it right, but has veered away from the truth of this matter -- in requiring transubstantiation, in limiting valid Eucharists to valid holy orders as defined by Rome, in the way the sacrificial understanding of the mass is understood, in deviating from offering in both kinds, and (at times) in superstitious practices and adoring/spectating rather than eating.
@@TruthUnites Thanks for the reply! I have loved watching you and Trent and others go back and forth. Wonderful conversations! I can appreciate those objections. Let's just stick with one for now... why is transubstantiation a problem for you? What does it say that "true presence" doesn't? thanks!
@@TruthUnites Dr. Ortlund, do Eucharistic miracles demonstrate transubstantiation, especially those that have been studied and approved by the Church? For instance, Pope Francis did commission a scientific investigation into a Eucharistic miracle that took place in Buenos Aires, when he was a Bishop. The results are available for all to see. I don’t think this is an area you spend most of your time on, but I am interested in knowing what you think. My second question is. What is your interpretation of Isaiah 66: 21, “Some of these I will take as priests and Levites, says the Lord.” It seems to me that this statement is referring to ministerial priesthood and not the common priesthood that all believers share.
Why? Because: 1. One trusts the Words of Christ: _This is my body_ 2. One trusts that Christ's Church, the Pillar of Truth, that Christ promised to lead to ALL TRUTH, that as guarded the faith now for 2000 years, protected by Christ from teaching doctrinal error (the gates of hell will NOT prevail) would not error on the topic.
the gates of hell will NOT prevail Do you even know what that means? You probably think that hell is the fiery domain of Satan and his demons? It's a place of punishment for sinners (even though they haven't been judged yet)? That Satan takes a break from punishing the damned to conjure up diabolical plots against the church? This is pagan. Most of the time, hell should be translated as the grave. The gates of hell would seek to keep people dead. But death will not overcome the church. Not the death of Jesus. Nor any saint. Because Jesus arose. As will all believers during the resurrection. The dead lie in the grave. There is no disembodied consciousness living either in heaven or hell.
I believe that the Communion elements are somehow, in a mysterious way, the body and blood of Jesus. In 2021, I was healed from a very serious affliction by taking Communion at home every day.
Hmm, how does one confect the Eucharist? As a Catholic, we have appstolic succession, which at least gives a reason for the authority of priests to do so. I am curious to to hear how you would answer this. Can any believer confect the Eucharist? Is it ordained ministers? If ordained ministers, who gives the authority to the ordained? Also, how does one come worthily? Do you have to have a belief in the real presence? If so, are Protestants who hold to the idea that it is only a symbol commit sacrilege if they recieve? I have a lot more questions, but that is already to many haha. Thanks for a short and concise video! Hopefully you can elaborate more on this another time. God bless.
The candidate to the priesthood must solely be approved for entrance to the seminary. The candidate in the seminary discerns with his superors ingoing whether or not he has authentic calling, and this process can take years, It is the bishop, successor to the apostles, who in the end prayerfully discerns if the aspirant deacon, is called. At ordination, the bishop likewise lays hands on the candidate, the anointing of the Holy Spirit is noe consecrating the priest as one of Christ’s ministers, and this laying on of hands has been from hand to hand going back to the original apostles. The Anglican Church in so many ways is a mirror of the Catholic Church but the transmission of apostolic authority and faith is not passed down. Anglicanism is nationalistic with a temporal, worldly monarch as its head, is extremely anti Catholic forcing all Catholics in England to become Anglican, allowed divorce, In the 1930’s allowed use of contraception, now women priests, gay marriage, etc.
I’ve really appreciated your work on this topic. It’s deepened my appreciation for taking the elements at our local Baptist Church. Unfortunately it looks as though a polarization took place in Church history in which people gravitated to either a Memorial view or Transubstantiation view. The Real Presence view seems to bridge the divide between both of those views, while correcting many misconceptions found in each one.
Transubstantiation is one of several explanations for the Real Presence. The others are Consubstantiation (Anglican), and Sacramental Union (Lutheran). The Eastern Orthodox have never tried to explain it, simply accept it as a Divine Mystery. I have never quite understood the Reformed/Presbyterian view of the Eucharist. Something along the lines of Virtual Presence. I do t think the reformer Jean Calvin ever really made up his mind about it and who cares? He was merely one person out of millions in a 2000 year history. Don’t really understand why people get so hung up on Transubstantiation - or any other explanation for that matter. It is dependent on a particular philosophical view of the nature of matter. Who cares? Real Presence is the critical thing, and it has now disappeared from most of Protestantism.
@@marksmale827 I attempted to learn the difference between Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation one time. I think I understand the difference and I am biased towards Transubstantiation (as a Catholic). But for the life of me I could never give an explanation of why the difference in the two views would be worth a schism. Memorialism vs Real Presence I can understand, but I find no reason to debate someone that affirms Real Presence even if their explanation differs. I guess the only dividing line I could see is veneration of the host. But veneration is already an area of contention between Catholics and Protestants anyway. Maybe Protestants think the Real Presence is only there for a time and leaves? I don't know tbh
@@sentjojo As I understand it, Transubstantiation depends on a a particular philosophy of the nature of matter, that proposed by the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle. But I wholeheartedly agree with you. Arguments over the mechanism of Real Presence are silly. The Eastern Orthodox are wiser than us western Christians in this regard, and simply leave it as a Divine Mystery.
@@marksmale827 Mystery doesn't necessarily mean that we can't have some understanding of how it works. I don't think the Catholic Church defining Transubstantiation was a bad thing to do. The goal wasn't to teach people Aristotelianism, the goal was to teach people why the Eucharist deserves veneration and adoration. Was the church effective in that goal? That is debatable
He says "What is the purpose of the eucharist? To apply the benefits of Christ death onto believers".... Woah I don't he's saying you need to take to be saved, but that's what it sounded like.
Awesome video. As an elder at a baptist church, I have been discussing this issue with my fellow elders for about a year, and working to bring more clarity on our views and application of the Eucharist. This video is helpful. If you could, would you do one one which elements are appropriate to use in celebration of the Eucharist. We currently use a small unleaven wafer and juice. It would be helpful to hear your thoughts on the type of bread to be used and whether it is appropriate to use a substitute for wine because of its alcohol content.
Ah yes. A Baptist: one who believes that the word baptidzo means to fully immerse and therefore immersion is the only Biblical mode of baptism and all others are false... but grape juice is fine for communion. Sorry brother. Feeling a bit facetious this morning ;)
@@TheDudesCatholic - I wish it was quite that simple. But just as there is valid discussion about the use of leavened or unleavened bread, so there is also valid discussion about using alcoholic or non-alcoholic "fruit of the vine". Trust me, I have a pretty strong view on it... but I don't think this is quite bread vs. pizza.
@@brentonstanfield5198 My Lutheran church uses wine, but accommodates those who are recovering from an alcohol addiction by also offering grape juice. Both are consecrated.
@@TheDudesCatholic - Well, since it can be argued that wine is just fermented (alcoholic) grape juice… the question is whether there is symbolism in the alcohol. I think there is but others disagree.
I would like to see Gavin talk about how the Eucharist is not the Body and Blood for unbelievers or the faithless especially in light of what St. Paul says about the Eucharist.
Christ's glorified body blood soul and divinity literally is life Just as He breathed life into Adam! We are made in His image and Likeness which means in every aspect of life!
Catholic Answers has just published an article by Karlo Broussard in which he explains that Luther rejected transubstantiation on the grounds of his Nominalist belief that substances (as universals) are not real.
Lutherans explicitly reject transubstantiation believing that the bread and wine remain fully bread and fully wine, BUT, while also being truly the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Professional Catholic Broussard's argument is another example of an apologetic distinction without a difference.
I think it’s wonderful that you believe in the real presence, Gavin. But if you carry that belief rigorously to its conclusion, that the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus is under the forms of bread and wine; that Jesus comes down on our altars; that we feast on the flesh and drink the blood of God; then you’re a hop, skip, and a jump away from the Catholic position. How does your liturgy respect the fact of the real presence? Do you have a liturgy properly speaking? What do the Church fathers say about this? And if Jesus is substantially present, doesn’t that mean that the celebration of the Eucharist is a representation of our Lord’s sacrifice?
Thanks! Its different from the Roman Catholic in three respects -- I outline them in my dialogue with Brett Salkeld in the first 10 minutes or so. I also address some of these other questions. Hope that helps.
As a Lutheran, we get it, Prebyterians kinda get it as do Methodists and Anglicans. It's really annoying to me that Catholics either are ignorant in that or outright lie about the majority of Protestants denominations *do* believe in presence of some level. And yes, the 9th commandment violation is something that they need to head to confession if the latter is right.
Gavin thank you for this short video! By faith...what exactly do we receive by receiving the body and blood of the Lord in a spiritual manner? For instance, the RCC says it is spiritual nourishment and is also propitiatory, which I wholeheartedly reject the latter. The Orthos say it is mystical and don't overly define it in my experience. And the Lutherans say it's for forgiveness of sins. What do we receive in your studies? I see the eucharist as the body of Christ identifying ourselves with our Lord, through the remembrance of His one and final and sufficient sacrifice. So we are no longer ourselves but His entirely. It's interesting that the Church is the body of Christ, while also being His perfect bride.
Thank you for your work , it’s easy to allow the Catholic and Orthodox bully Protestants into thinking that Protestantism as a whole is not sacramental and not orthodox but you do a great job in educating us all on the roots of Protestantism vs modern American evangelicalism
its either a miracle or when Jesus said this is my body(hoc est corpus meum) he didn't mean it. Since we believe Jesus is the Truth We take him at his word. It is his body. I think understanding the God exists in eternity and lives outside linear time is how he can recieve the body one day before and we can recieve the body 2k years after.
@@MrPeach1 To me it’s a false dichotomy to say either Jesus did a miracle or he didn’t mean it when he said,”This is my body”, because that makes a memorial/symbolic view impossible. Why would that be? It’s reasonable to consider a memorial/symbolic view because: 1. The Passover meal Jesus was eating was a highly symbolic meal, where the elements of the meal (bitter herbs, salt water dip, unleavened bread, roasted lamb, cups of wine) each represented an aspect of slavery in Egypt which were meant to cause remembrance for the participants. 2. The Incarnation required the Son of God to be localized in a body as we all are to be human. The person of the Son of God was not omnipresent and outside of time during the Last Supper. Therefore, Jesus could not have offered himself as a sacrifice in the bread and wine prior to the sacrifice having taken place. 3. A literal eating of human flesh and drinking of human blood view ignores the fact that Jesus and his Apostles were under the Law of Moses during the Last Supper, which forbade the consumption of blood. Jesus, who authored the Law and came to “fulfill the Law and not abolish it”, could not have broken it by having his Apostles drink his blood. 4. The Apostles long after the Last Supper we’re keeping kosher. We see this in Peter’s vision of the clean and unclean animals. When God tells him to kill and eat the unclean animals Peter replies “Surely not, Lord!” “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.” This admission shows that Peter never wittingly ate or drank anything that was not kosher and this would include human flesh and blood. Additionally, at the Council of Jerusalem, James gives the instruction to the gentile believers to abstain from eating blood as one of the practices they must abide by. The Apostles are giving the gentiles a command that they follow as well. Therefore the Apostles could not have viewed the Lord’s Supper, which they were routinely eating, as literal human flesh and blood. The Reformers held on to many traditions of the RCC after their splitting off from it such as the perpetual virginity of Mary and infant baptism. So it’s not convincing for me to hear that the real presence view was held by the Reformers as a statement of correct belief. It makes sense that they would maintain the belief in real presence because the Eucharist was a central aspect of the Christian life as was infant baptism.
@@robertdelisle7309 i don't think its a false dichotomy to suggest Jesus either misrepresents the bread as his body or it actually is his body. He did not say Take and eat this is "like" my body he said it IS my body. So Jesus would be lying about the bread I personally won't go there with you. Also never say Jesus could not do something. Jesus could always do anything even in the incarnation.
@@MrPeach1 Jesus willingly limited himself in the incarnation. This isn’t a denial of Gods abilities but it is a recognition that the person of the Son of God chose to be localized in a corporal body and because of this, there are things that follow from that reality. Jesus cannot be localized in human form and omnipresent at the same time. No more than a man can be a married bachelor. Jesus isn’t being misleading in saying “this is my body” if he didn’t mean it literally because Jesus had a precedent for using metaphor often. Was Jesus being misleading when he told people he was a door to be knocked upon or a gate to a sheep’s pen or a light? How is it that those who hold a literal view can recognize that Jesus used metaphor at other times, but this time he was speaking literally? How can you tell when Jesus is using metaphor and when he is being literal?
@@robertdelisle7309 how can you say a man that raises people from the dead, walks on water, changes water into wine, calms storms, transfiguration on a mountain and hangs with dead prophets, limits himself?
The Catholic view is that Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be received with equal reverence. I don't believe that. However, as Protestants we do consider church history to be weighty in our thinking.
@@TruthUnites I didn’t mean to question your conviction, but despite your well-known position, when you state, “…you don't find a full-blown theory of the Eucharist in the New Testament…” and then follow that up by stating, “You can't find Church fathers where it's a bit ambiguous and uncertain,” that certainly seems to fit the formula for development of Sacred Tradition. Often, I think, Protestants (not you) think that when we Catholics speak of “Sacred Tradition,” they think that it means, “A rite or practice that became a habit and eventually someone said, ‘Let’s codify that,” and, voila, a Sacred Tradition is born!” Abrogation of the Mosaic dietary laws, eating with Gentiles, and accepting them into the Covenant community was, by definition, “Sacred Tradition” the moment that Peter saw the sheet descending from the sky in his vision in Acts 10. Often, I think, the “not received with equal reverence,” concept devolves into a distinction without difference. There are churches I know that claim to stand wholly upon “Sola Scriptura” but have church membership rules that, while not referred to as “Sacred Tradition” are nonetheless enforced just as strongly as - or even more strongly than - much more obvious biblical prohibitions and mandates. I suggest that many churches have and use de facto “Sacred Tradition,” though the very idea would be anathema to the leaders of those congregations. When I was growing up, complete teetotaling was very much a “Sacred Tradition” among almost all the evangelical churches in my community, and the Christian school I attended. I think almost all Protestants still know of folks who follow that line of thinking. All this to say that “Sacred Tradition” may be a lot closer to many Protestants than would make them comfortable. I fully appreciate & understand your position. Thank you for your response and the conversation.
@@wjtruax i appreciate your insight. I have always been Catholic so it is always nice to hear lived experience and not just high level theology from Reformers. The lived reality is what it is. I listened to Douglas Beaumont and he talked about the reality of finding a church that aligned to all everything believer believed in a practical way. A Southern Baptist church that holds to the view of Real Presence that Gavin presents is probably like buying a winning lottery ticket rare. The ones I know of go out of their way to make sure everyone knows that Baptism does nothing.
Great clip. I have some questions, does it matter who offers it? Does it have to be in a church service? can it be anytime anywhere? Does it matter if it is wine or grape juice?
What are your thoughts on the better expression of the Eucharist being a full meal instead of a token ritual? A meal in which believers actually fellowship with each other and the Lord over many dishes of food with the bread and wine given preeminence. I've heard people describe what the Church engages in today as the Lord's Snack instead of the Lord's Supper LOL
I'm praying for you Gavin, I was born and raised Baptist but thankfully the Lord brought me out of the desert of protestantism and into the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Lord is here waiting for you brother! God bless you!
William you do know that so many Catholics have come out into Protestantism and said the same thing. I heard them say exactly what you said. Why are so many cradle Catholics in Latin America leaving on mass to become Pentecostal? What’s that about?
I forgot to ask…in your tradition, how does consecration of the Eucharistic elements occur and how does a cleric receive the authority to perform the consecration? I don’t have a”gotcha” response ready, I just would like to know. Grace & peace.
I’m coming to this sense: Altho I find it hard to discern this mystery ( maybe cause I’m living in a materialistic and hyper racional context ) I’m starting to think that none the less I should submit to this understanding. As in submitting to the giants Chruch fathers and the reformers, as in trying to put aside my ego and submitting to the testimony of the body of Christ. I’m still on the journey but this is the stance I’m grappling with.
The Lord spoke to one of the elders in my last church in a housegroup meeting, saying that communion was intimacy with him. Yours is the only teaching I’ve ever heard saying the same thing.
Hi Gavin (and anyone else reading). I grew up with memorialism and find this really challenging, but I want to think it through properly. I'd be curious what any of you have found actually changes in your experience of taking communion when you adopt this view? I can understand the intellectual exercise of working through the theology, but I find myself wondering what one would actually do/think/pray differently in the actual moment, if that makes sense? I'm other words, how would it affect my life and faith to adopt this position? At the end of the day, is it not still a moment for profound reflection on, assurance of and gratitude for Jesus' sacrifice? Is there more that I'm missing? Genuinely and humbly asking 🙂
Hello, I think you should look up "theology of the body" and watch a few of Christopher West's videos about the eucharist. It will answer your question 🙂
Great video. Really reading 1 Cor. 10 & 11 and then discovering what Luther and the Anglican 39 articles and Wesley and Lewis all had to say about really receiving the body and blood of Christ in Communion was a major turning point in my faith. I had been going to Baptist and non-denominational/charismatic churches that (as you say) had abandoned the historic catholic/universal affirmation of real presence, and this was one reason (among others) that started me on a path towards Wesleyan/Anglican spirituality. Like you (and Jordan Cooper), I wish more evangelicals who are enticed by Rome or Constantinople would revisit the actual teachings of classical Reformers, since they are actually more “catholic” (in the original sense), more Biblical, and more generous.
At the very first at the last supper Christ was actually present in His body when He said “This is my body” and “this is my blood” so it was apparent he meant it as representing His body and blood metaphorically.
This most literal profession the one they reject. We can’t have the Eucharist without the priesthood. Luther’s intent was to destroy the priesthood and thus the Church, albeit it was in need of much reform. The Council of Trent corrected the corruption taking 11 years to complete aa the bishops all had to assemble during wars and danger.
I was not aware that Protestantism historically has regarded (and still does regard) the Lord's Supper as a sacrifice--I have never come across this before, but I have heard the opposite. I really thought Protestantism rejected this sacrificial vision of the Eucharist, and not simply in cleaning up what might have been folk-misunderstandings of the Mass. So that's very interesting. Did the Anglican communion also retain this view?
Elements or emblems? That means a lot! It's like the difference between a gold bar and the periodic symbol for gold: AU. As a Lutheran, I approve of your video.
Great video! Your ministry has been a true blessing. I’d love to hear your thoughts though: What is your view on those Christians who do believe in a Zwinglian memorialist view of communion? You have said that you are happy to recognize the church wherever Christ is present in word and sacrament, so do memorialists have a “valid” sacrament in your view? And I suppose I would ask the same about those who believe in transubstantiation. Do they have a valid sacrament even though they are in error? How far can one stray from a proper view and practice of the lord’s supper before they no longer have Christ in sacrament?
Gavin, one of my major objections to this notion comes from the fact that people do communion in ways that violate the typology of the last supper. Even in the graphic you show as the cover image to this video, you show leavened bread. But Jesus' liturgy where he established communion as a sacrament was done with *unleavened bread*: Matthew 26:17-19, 26-29 17 Now on the first day of *Unleavened Bread* the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Where will you have us prepare for you to eat the Passover?” 18 He said, “Go into the city to a certain man and say to him, ‘The Teacher says, My time is at hand. I will keep the Passover at your house with my disciples.’” 19 And the disciples did as Jesus had directed them, and they prepared the Passover. ... 26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.” . Why is this important? Because leavening symbolizes sin and spreading corruption: Matthew 16:5-12 5 When the disciples reached the other side, they had forgotten to bring any bread. 6 Jesus said to them, “Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 7 And they began discussing it among themselves, saying, “We brought no bread.” 8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, “O you of little faith, why are you discussing among yourselves the fact that you have no bread? 9 Do you not yet perceive? Do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? 10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? 11 How is it that you fail to understand that I did not speak about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Matthew 13:33 He told them another parable. “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven that a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, till it was all leavened.” . Paul repeatedly referred to this parable, where leaven symbolizes corruption and sin, even saying that we should keep the festival with unleavened bread. For us, this festival is our sacrament of holy communion. 1 Corinthians 5:6-7 6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7 Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 *Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.* Galatians 5:7-10 7 You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? 8 This persuasion is not from him who calls you. 9 *A little leaven leavens the whole lump.* 10 I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view, and the one who is troubling you will bear the penalty, whoever he is. . Since leavening symbolizes sin, by using leavened bread, we violate the typology of the last supper. The last supper was instituted using unleavened bread, the matzoh, which is pierced, and whose toasting leaves it looking bruised. These aspects of the unleavend bread are evocative of Isaiah 53. Jesus, who was sinless, who was pierced for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities. But if someone takes a loaf of leavened bread (keeping in mind that leavening represents sin) that does not have the docking that pierces it and the toasted appearance of being bruised, and says that Christ is somehow present in this unpierced leavened bread when all of the typology of the unleavend bread of Passover is being violated, that doesn't seem right to me. Communion should be at the very least done with unleavened bread, not just some loaf of leavened bread that one happens to have around. The text explicitly says that the last supper was during the time when unleavened bread would have been used.
I live in the Bible belt. I don’t think this is a commonly held view with SBC churches. Does the SBC hold this view? If not, are you wrong or are they wrong? And why? Btw great channel! You make me think, pray, and study more. Keep it up!
I went to a SBC church and it was very much memorialist. Kind of difficult to be only memorialist on communion or baptism. Normally churches are fully sacramental or fully memorialist
Interesting logic and appeal to history. When I looked at this in the past, as a former baptist, the thing that jumped out to me was the lack of exegetical data; lots of appeals to history and emotion. Maybe you should do a full video exegeting passages that would back this point. How does koinonia translate to "real presence". Is this objective or a matter of blind faith? Etc. Good video though.
I would ponder the verses he mentioned at the beginning of the video and check the context. For instance, in the context of 1 Cor 10:16, Paul qualifies his meaning of koinonia with the cognate “koinonous” (partakers) in v 18 and metexein (to partake) in v 17. This suggests that koinonia in v 16 means “a partaking together.” So we partake together of the body and blood of Christ. But even if it only meant a “fellowshipping,” what does it mean to fellowship with the body and blood of Christ? In what sense is real fellowship happening if the body and blood of Christ is not even present? Further, in the context Paul is comparing this experience with those who “become partakers of demons” through eating pagan sacrifices, seeming to suggest that such practices will result in real encounters with demons. How much more then should we think that Communion is a real encounter with the body and blood of Christ? Notice that this argument above is entirely exegetical, not an appeal to history or emotion. Add to this the fact that in ch 11 those who eat and drink unworthily are eating and drinking judgment upon themselves. But why would this happen if the bread and cup were only symbols? Did Uzzah die when he touched the Ark of the Covenant because it was only a symbol of the Lord’s presence? Or was it because the Lord’s presence was also really there, accompanying the symbol? When has the Lord ever put empty symbols before us? Would he now offer us a symbol of something without also offering the thing itself which is symbolized?
@@PatrickSteil John 6 would be great IF Jesus was teaching about or instituting the Lord's supper. But since it's nowhere in th context we'll have to keep seeing that as a great example of eisegesis. Although I do agree with you that this real presence position is like straddling a fence.
@@tonyb408 So what do we do with it then? Based on all the other references to the Body and Blood / Lord's Supper and that John 6 says the time for Passover was near - was this just a cute story? Why wouldn't it apply?
