@@andro6534 Internet Catholics don't like the Orthodox but the Catholic Church has stated that the Orthodox have a valid Eucharist, catholics can confess to an orthodox priest if there are no catholic priests (although an orthodox priest wouldn't accept that) and Pope's have said not to convert the orthodox. also an anecdote, there was a catholic youtuber I forget his name he was making arguments against Orthodoxy and basically saying the Orthodox need to convert and his priest rebuked him and told him to stop
WELS Lutheran here. This was a great video. Allow me to give some thoughts: 1. Despite what it may seem, we don't believe God is somehow hindered by man's hardened rejecting will, God is all-powerful without any limits. However, he chooses to spread his grace in a way which can be resisted. Why and how this works is for God to know alone. It is not as if we are not willing to believe in double predestination; if the Scriptures testify to it, may it ever be so. We don't believe in it because we see no evidence in Scripture for it and lots of evidence that God's calling can be resisted. The Reformed may call our stance on predestination contradictory to logic, we would call the Reformed stance on predestination contradictory to what the Word says. 2. I would argue there is variance of positions on whether or not all infants are instantly saved at baptism. As for me personally, I would hold on to the hope a baptized infant is saved rather than say beyond a shadow of a doubt they are. We are born enemies of God, born unbelievers. The hardness of heart may grow as someone matures, sure, yet I wouldn't say it's completely absent from an infant child. Does every baptized child immediately come to faith? I don't think we can know for sure. There is a host of other reasons why we baptize infants. One, because Christ told us to baptize all people. Two, if salvation flows from baptism, then that gift of the Spirit should be bestowed as soon as possible - even if the child doesn't believe but then later on comes to faith, salvation still flows from said baptism. Three, we are to be united with God and his Word as much as humanly possible, even beginning as an infant. Looking at the wording of Scripture, we don't see instances of non-elect baptisms with no salvific affect. As Paul writes, "all who were baptized into Christ have been clothed with Christ". I suppose you can claim he was specifically referring to believers though it neither endorses a doctrine of non-efficacious baptisms. 3. We believe unbelievers take the body and blood of Christ in Communion quoth the statement in 1 Corinthians 11:27: "Whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord." If Christ were not present, Paul could just say they are guilty of sinning against the Lord; yet he goes the extra mile to specify it is against Christ's body and blood. Also, John 6 isn't precisely about Communion so that argument isn't as clean, even if Communion is surely being hinted at. 4. As you know, we divide the Word into Law and Gospel. That bedrock is why every single service will absolutely emphasize our salvation. As my own pastor says, if he does a sermon without the Gospel preached, he has failed and needs to be called out on it. Of course we can focus on other aspects of the faith, but the Gospel must be the shining beacon, a blinding light. If you did read all of this, wow, thank you. Despite differences we are brethren in Christ, united by his grace.
Is #3 also why Lutherans don't allow non-Lutherans to participate in communion? I'm Baptist, but am barred from participating in communion because I'm not Lutheran.
@@KevvoLightswift Partly. We practice Closed Communion because we believe we should only commune alongside those we are in complete fellowship with; in this case, fellowship meaning those who believe the exact same doctrines as us. Unbelievers are asked to refrain from Communion to keep them from sinning. Believers may be asked to refrain from Communion if they differ in doctrine.
@@restedassurance That still seems very weird. Do you believe those who do not agree with infant baptism drink judgment upon themselves and participate in an unworthy manner during communion? Or who hold to a literal interpretation of Revelation? Your closed communion makes no sense, unless it refers to those who do not hold to *specific* beliefs about communion. I say this as someone who works at an LCMS church. I've yet to find someone who knows *exactly* why communion is closed. Maybe you'll be the first.
@@KevvoLightswift Taking it in an unworthy manner would relate to not realizing and revering Christ's body and blood for forgiveness of sins in the Supper, or taking it with an unrepentant heart; Quoth 1 Cor 11:29, "For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly." In 1 Cor 10:16-21, Paul states that those communing with each other are "one bread", united as one body in Christ. This kind of union is used as analogy of idolators and the unrepentant. Those who sacrifice to other spirits are united together as one body without factions or divisions. In the same way, those at the Lord's table should not have factions or divisions in any way. If people with differing beliefs come together, they are not one body, one union. This is not to say Christians with differing beliefs are "partaking of demons", but it is to say we should be of the exact same mind because the altar is a place of joint confession (1 Cor 11:26, Heb 13:10). And if the Lord's table is a place of confessional fellowship, we must be united in those confessions. As is written in 1 Cor 1:10 among other places, "I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment."
I would just like to say as a Lutheran myself, I do not dislike the Reformed. I dislike the theology of the Reformed that caused me to constantly be in a state of not knowing that I was saved.
@@KevvoLightswiftThe "condition" warned all across the Scriptures is to have faith. If you are repentant and believe, you are saved. Period. Many people (including myself) take issue with the concept of 'false faith' - the conclusion that if someone goes into apostasy, their faith was never genuine or saving. This becomes a terrifying thought when applied to yourself: Maybe you "think" you believe but in reality you were tricking yourself or didn't believe "hard enough". If this is the case, not a single soul can know if they are saved or will apostatize rendering everything before it 'fake'. On the other hand, if one walks back into an unsaved position through apostasy, there is absolutely no question of your salvation. Believe? Saved. Disbelieve? Unsaved.
The Swedish church rightly deserves F tier, but when I went to Denmark, to an independant biblical Lutheran church, it almost pushed me to Lutheranism. This is coming from a baptist
I think some of your critiques misrepresent Lutheranism. To start off, Lutherans didn't snub Calvin. We simply had too many differences to unite. Lutherans don't interpret scripture with the goal of giving people the assurance of their personal salvation. We simply read scripture as how scripture presents itself while not departing from the church's historical understanding of scripture. Where scripture doesn't speak we don't try to fill in the blanks. This is the main difference between the Reformed and Lutheran approach to scripture. We don't derive our understanding of predestination and the sacraments because we want to give people assurance of their salvation. We simply see that scripture talks about predestination and the sacraments as ways people can have assurance of their salvation, so we affirm it. Regarding worship, yes, we believe that the purpose of the Divine Service is to receive God's gifts of grace in Word and Sacraments. And as a response we offer him our sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise. I would argue that this makes our worship more God-centered not man-centered because we are not thinking about what we can bring to the table, rather, our minds and attention are on God's goodness in what he is doing for us in the service. In Lutheranism worship is for us, but not about us. Worship is not meant to be tailored to us and our preferences, which is why most Lutheran churches have maintained the historic liturgy. In the Reformed tradition, worship is for God, but about man because it's about what one can do for God. This leads to the thought of how can one best worship God, which leads to services being tailored toward the people and their preferred worship style, which is why many Reformed churches have adopted a more contemporary style of service because it's the way the people are most comfortable worshipping God. This is the view of most low church Protestants.
I think the differences between the two traditions can be summed up like this: Lutherans look at the doctrine of predestination through the lens of objective sacramental efficacy. The reformed look at sacramental efficacy through the lens of God's sovereign decree of predestination. As a lutheran, my biggest issue with reformed christians is that most of them misunderstand and, therefore, misrepresent Lutheran doctrine with very little motivation to actually try and understand what we believe. You are one of the few reformed people who actually understands the differences and does an excellent and accurate job of representing those differences. I appreciate that.
@@jonathanbroman517 Jag är med i en evangelisk-luthersk frikyrka som är del av ELM-BV/Missionsprovinsen. Du är välkommen till någon av våra församlingar!😃 Dock är det inte säkert vi finns där du bor.🤔
I'm an Eastern Catholic but I sympathize with Lutheranism. Double predestination is the one (and only) reason why I can not feel the same for Calvinism. Double predestination says that God is playing a game with humanity ("I put those ones in the winners team and the others in the losers team, and soon everybody will see what happens to the ones I haven't favored!") and I'm absolutely convinced that God doesn't play games with His creation. Also it is cruel (You can be devoted to God and to the church your whole life, but: "Ooops, you are not among the chosen. Such bad fortune! Anyways...") and grace and cruelty have zero intersections. I absolutely agree that God has the undisputed ABILITY and RIGHT to do whatever He wants but in my opinion every single phrase within the Bible that describes God's nature points to the fact that he would never actually CHOOSE the horrific and gruesome way that is double predestination. That kind of choice would be the exact opposite of everything God stands for, ESPECIALLY what he stands for according to the words he thought us through the Logos Jesus Christ. So I'd even claim that the faith in double predestination is unequivocal Christian heresy.
I would only say that we must remember that the condition of man is one where we are all on the losers team; when we look to the Scriptures, God makes executive decisions based on His will alone, for example, "Jacob I loved but Esau I hated," and "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy and compassion on whom I have compassion," as Paul points out. So whatever election there is, it isn't cruelty for God to be God. But if we believe, then we can have assurance that he saves and he keeps us saved. We should rejoice over God's sovereignty as believers and rejoice that we are a part of his salvation plan by sharing the Gospel. Spurgeon was quoting another preacher who was told he should preach only to the elect. The preacher said "next Sunday morning, chalk them all on the back and when you have done that, I will preach to them." And that was the problem, of course, and Spurgeon said, we must cast the seed by the wayside, that's the method given to us. So election (theology) is not meant as a bludgeon against those who are being saved or even those who are perishing, but rather as a confirmation to the believer.
Double predestination is not as torturous as you think it is, it basically is a claim that God will allow pople/being to exist who will use their free will to ignore God and God will still create them and allow them to exist.
@@gabrielpeterson2079 What you’ve just described is Arminianism, and it’s a form of single predestination, not Calvinistic double-predestination. Pure Calvinistic double-predestination asserts a positive reprobation. i.e God is actively choosing not to save certain individuals by withholding the grace required for salvation from the reprobate.
You are treating it like a lottery where you can be faithful and serve the church and yet not be elect and end up in hell. This is not the reformed view at all. The reformed see faith as a gift through election. The reprobate WANT to thrive in sin. It is not that God is making them sin against their will.
I'm Lutheran and I've never heard a pastor say "look to your baptism for assurance of salvation." Not sure where you got that from. There's some other things you got wrong, too, but nothing worth going into. Great video man.
As a 1689 baptist i feel your pain, sometimes he can lump groups together when there’s distinction. 😂 Try to understand he’s speaking in generality though, and not trying to insult or make fun, but rather emphasize differences between the two positions.
Bryan Wolfmueller actively encourages people to remind themselves that they are (not were, are) baptised when they doubt their salvation. With the explainer that if they still believe that Christ gave them the gift of baptism for the forgiveness of sins, then they must also believe that Christ forgives sins.
Important thing to have in mind about Lutheranism in Sweden: There is an independent traditional Lutheran church organization in Sweden called 'Missionsprovinsen'. This church rejects all heretical ideas that have unfortunately taken place in the Church of Sweden. Read more about them here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionsprovinsen
What I like most about Reformed theology is the centrality of God. It is the tradition that I see that comes to the Bible without wanting to put its preconceived ideas about God, but willing to read what God has actually revealed, even if it is not pleasing and to follow its logical conclusions, even if they are difficult. Reading the Bible now, I don't know how anyone can't see the absolute sovereignty and holiness of God and the depth of human sin, which are what make God's grace so great. The doctrine of predestination is crystal clear in Scripture. Reformed Theology is the most biblical theology I have ever seen, which is why I converted to Presbyterianism at 29 years old.
I really enjoy your youtube channel! It challenges me and my beliefs as a WELS Lutheran who grew up in the church it is great to have some challenges! I enjoy hereing about Calvinism because where we live we mostly learned about catholics and baptists because theyre the major church bodies in our region. It is nice to see someone taking the conservative christian church to youtube for it to be discussed. Regarding Lutherans and Infant Baptism - We believe part of the great commission is to train people even after their baptism and that is the job of the family and the church. Falling away is not because the baptism is invalid or because they never believed but rather because their faith was not watered by the church and the family. We believe you actively pursue God's ways by the Holy Spirit and God makes your faith grow. Your sinful nature is still able to push against God's word and his commands but that does not mean you do not have faith. I could go on and i am a lay person but I very interested in theology. Please discuss this because it is good to be challenged!
People read the text based on the narrative they're given by others. It comes down to which narrative you personally prefer, and then you become convinced it's the only correct interpretation because you chose it for yourself (because how could anyone else choose otherwise?). Hence every Christian RU-vid channel that exists. I'm just as guilty. But it makes dialoguing with other Christians dynamic and sometimes verbose, sadly.
If you read Romans 9 in the context of the entire letter Paul wrote, you don't get a calvinist teaching. The potter and clay analogy is often misunderstood by them. Leighton Flowers has a much more understandable reading of Romans 9 than any Calvinist I've seen.
I'd like to preface this by saying that I'm a fan of yours and appreciate the things you're doing for the Church as a whole, especially in trying to get young people into theology and into the Church to revitalize it. That said I have some criticisms of this video and responses to some of your points, but I intend them to be respectful and constructive, and I hope they come across that way. 12:00-18:30 - I think this really comes down to one of the main differences between Lutheran and Reformed Christians. I once heard a Lutheran pastor (I think it was Jordan Cooper, but don't quote me on that) say that the main difference between those two is that the Reformed emphasize the sovereignty of God and all their theology flows from that, whereas the Lutherans emphasize the truthfulness of God in His Word, and all their theology flows from that (I would also say that describing the emphasis of Lutheranism as being about assurance of salvation is a bit of a misnomer. It's really more about the truthfulness of God. Assurance of salvation is just the logical consequence of that truthfulness). Essentially, if God baptism saves (1 Pet. 3:21), then it saves. Period. It's the same kind of logic that applies to the Lord's Supper. "Is means is." I myself and many other Lutherans would view it this way: if God says baptism saves, then it saves. If God said that, and it only saves sometimes, then functionally, that makes God a liar. Yes, God is totally free, but "it is impossible for God to lie," (Heb. 6:18). Certainly, Lutherans believe in the sovereignty of God, and of course the Reformed believe in the truthfulness of God, but I think that the Lutheran position is more consistent with a high view of Scripture. If you haven't read it, I'd strongly recommend reading The Bondage of the Will. Luther breaks down exactly how to reconcile these things in there, and I would say he even predicts the Calvinist position on the question and provides some counterpoints. To give the shortest explanation I can here, he basically argues that all things do happen according to the will of God, but that there's a distinction between what God actively wills to occur and what He allows. Your point about John 6 is interesting. I've never heard that before, and I'll have to look into that. 18:30-19:45 - I think I agree with the sentiment you're expressing here, but I would just point out that it's one thing to believe in the majesty of God, and another to actually have faith and trust in Him (James 2:19). While it's hugely important to have right theology and a right view of the majesty of God, there's more to faith than that, and actually trusting that God is for you is the more important part of the Christian life. 20:15-23:49 - I know Cooper has talked about this (although maybe not in the specific video you're referencing), but I think it's important to point out that Lutheran worship very consciously goes both ways. We give God our praise and thanksgiving, and He gives us His gifts through Word and Sacrament. Yes, we emphasize the latter more than the former, but both are very much present. The two are pretty intimately tied together: He gives us His gifts, and we respond to Him with praise and thanksgiving. After He gives us His Word in the readings, we respond "Thanks be to God." The hymns we sing during the Lord's Supper aren't just there to fill dead air either. While the Eucharist is being celebrated and Christ gives us Himself, we are giving Him praise. Us serving Christ and Christ serving us do not need to be set against each other. I think this is a false dichotomy. The fact that we were created to glorify God doesn't change this. Part of the way that He glorifies Himself is by saving us and giving us His gifts through Word and Sacrament. Even the Westminster Catechism that you referenced seems to confess this: "glorify God and enjoy Him forever." It seems to go both ways. We glorify God, and He gives us His gifts so that we can enjoy Him forever. The same logic applies to your point about the Church. It goes both ways. We exist to serve the Body, but the Body serves us as well. I think it'd be foolish to deny that. (While we're on the topic, I appreciate everything you're doing with the Reconquista, and especially how in one of your recent videos you encouraged Lutherans to revitalize the LCMS as well. We absolutely need it.) I would once again say that it's a false dichotomy to set believers serving the Church and the Church serving believers against each other. I think a large part of this divide does come down to the fact that Lutherans have a higher sacramentology than the Reformed. It seems to me that the sacraments hold a much higher place in Lutheran theology, and that's reflected in our approach to worship. 24:00-28:15 - Most Lutherans I know would affirm something *similar* to Covenant Theology, but you're right that we don't fully buy into the system. I would just reply you're right, it does literally say that there's an old and new covenant. I mean no disrespect, but I think that the whole "two administrations" thing seems like a way to explain away the fact that the text literally says there's two covenants. I don't think that acknowledging that makes me a Dispensationalist since there's a lot more to that system than just "there's an old and new covenant," and I would also say that breaking Eschatology down to there only being Dispensationalism and full-blown Reformed Covenant Theology is a bit of a false dichotomy (I'm not accusing you of that, but I have seen it presented this way elsewhere). The Old Testament does apply to us, just not the Mosaic Ceremonial Law, since Christ fulfilled that for us, which you agree with in this video. Lutherans still uphold the Sabbath, and all the Ten Commandments. We view the commandment about the Sabbath to be more about making the time to rest and to hear God's Word. You can read about that in detail in Luther's Large Catechism. It's not *just* a symbol of our Sabbath rest in God, but that doesn't mean there's nothing symbolic about it in that way. 28:15-29:25 - Yes, Luther said some anti-Semitic stuff, but honestly, it's pretty tame compared to the stuff he said about the Pope and it's even tame for his time. "On the Jews and their Lies" was written as an apologetic tract against Jews who trying to convince Christians to reject Jesus as the Messiah. Luther was one of the key figures in reviving the study of the Old Testament in the original Hebrew.
Great video as always. As a Polish Lutheran I really appreciate these kinds of videos, being able to hear more about my denomination from someone who belongs to another. I am still in the middle of my theological journey, reading the Bible, the fathers and different confessions and texts from the Reformation. I strongly believe God will lead me to the Truth or, rather, the closest thing we can have to the Truth. I currently attend a small Reformed church in my city, in big part thanks to watching your videos, and it's helping my faith grow tremendously. God bless You, Zoomer. Your videos are fantastic.
@@tragos9414 A, no ja tak samo, z niepraktykującego nominalnego katolika. Jedyny problem jest taki że KEA w Polsce jest dosyć liberalny, zwłaszcza parafie w dużych miastach.
@@libatonvhs Niestety prawda, KEA przyciąga głównie ludzi, którzy z KRK uciekli bo im się nie podoba jego spoleczny konserwatyzm . Dlatego zdecydowałem się na Ewangeliczny Kościół Reformowany. Taka rekonkwista jaką przeprowadza Zoomer w Stanach raczej nie ma racji bytu w Polsce, gdzie ewangelików mamy trzech na krzyż. Raczej lepiej wzmacniać u nas te wspólnoty, które faktycznie nauczają prawd biblijnych.
@@libatonvhs Niestety prawda. KEA przyciąga głównie ludzi, których od KRK odrzucał jego konserwatyzm, więc kierują przekaz do tych właśnie ludzi. Poza tym KEA jest w Światowej Federacji Luterańskiej razem z kościołami państwowymi (np. Szwecji), a pastorów wypluwa ChAT w Warszawie. No i ten liberalizm mnie odstraszył od KEA więc co niedzielę chodzę do Reformowanego Kościoła Ewangelicznego. Taka rekonkwista jaką przeprowadza Zoomer w Stanach nie ma raczej racji bytu w Polsce, gdzie ewangelików mamy trzech na krzyż, więc u nas raczej opowiadałbym się za wzmacnianiem tych wspólnot, które nauczają zgodnie z Pismem.
Hi. Im kind of having a crisis about predestination right now. Thank you for explaining things. I will try to bring these things up with my theology friend on Sunday. Thank you for helping me.
Ask God for guidance. It wasn’t until I prayed and said “God, if I chose you then all glory to You. If You chose me then all glory to You” that God taught me by a sermon the next time I was in church of how man is free to choose Christ but unable due to the sinful desires of his heart, without divine intervention. I previously wrestled with this for years. Even loosing sleep. I will pray for you now for the next 5 minutes. I’ll set a timer.
I don't know what your crisis is but find it much more comforting to believe that my salvation depends on God, who is perfect and faithful, than on me, who is flawed and limited. I believe that anyone who thinks differently has the wrong anthropology or theology. Either they don't really understand how sinful they are and therefore how terrible it is that salvation depends on their will, or they have a wrong view of God, seeing him as a father who wants to deceive them and who doesn't keep his promises. I would like to remember that in Reformed theology there is no possibility of a person who sincerely has faith in God dying and discovering that he was not an elect in the end, because those who believe are those who were elected to do so.
Love the genevan tunes you play, kind of just assumed us Dutch reformed were the only ones used it. Definitely the best tunes for worship out there, contemporary worship can wash my sheets as far as im concerned!
I find traditional Lutheran Worship more theocentric and focus in Adoration than many Presbyterian services; many of Reformed church services them are like a Lecture with a couple of songs attached to it.
Zwingli was the true villain of the reformation, he RUINED EVERYTHING, honestly though it meant our tradition never went into contact with (gags) the French… so at least it is pure.
LCMS here in the South. I opened up about an issue I have within the Book of Concord in a church group and no one quipped. When I returned the next week they were happy to have me.
@@AllhailTDLjimpic i understand that some of you do not, but just as many probably do. Then again this is just due to poor catechesis which happens in pretty much every denomination. Im sure there are lutherans who do not believe in the real presence but do believe in predestination.
I'm an adult convert to confessional Lutheranism from charismatic pentecostalism who regularly attends a confessional Presbyterian church.. I think of the Lutheran/Presbyterian churches as fraternal twins.. So many things in common, but no one would confuse one for the other.. The main difference seems to me to be that calvinists like to have a rational explanation for every point of doctrine while Lutheran are opposed to explanations that require a magisterial use of reason over scripture. An example of this is that Lutherans go no further than scripture in their confession about the presence of Christ with the bread and wine in the Supper.. Jesus said this bread and wine *IS* my body and blood.. Lutherans say, full stop. Calvinist seem to need to explain *how* even though scripture doesn't elaborate. I find this difference to be the reason I can't convert to a calvinist denomination
I, too, converted from Pentecostalism to Lutheranism (LCMS). But aside from the solas, I don't think there's much we have in common with the Reformed. Our views on the Ordo salutis, the sacraments, tradition, and more are quite different. I'd say we have more in common with Rome than the Reformed. They're more like cousins rather than fraternal twins.
@@Nonz.M that's what I thought before attending this particular Presbyterian Church.. They have a very similar liturgical format, vestments, call & response, emphasis on weekly communion with actual wine.. I could go on, but I've often thought this congregation has more in common practice-wise with Lutherans than some LCMS congregations I've visited.. Made me start wondering what calvinist truly believe they believe as opposed to what Calvin-critical Lutherans have told me they believe..
@@meyaomeyao I see. It's true that some Presbyterian churches are liturgical, but using the historic liturgy isn't the basis of defining similarity between groups. Some Methodists are also liturgical, but I don't think you would say we're like fraternal twins with them. When it comes to doctrine, we are quite different with both of those groups.
@@Nonz.M I see what you're saying and agree that fraternal twins may be too strong.. I guess I just expected the presentation to be more concerned with 2CV and the preaching to lean more toward fruit checking, predestination, etc., than it is at this church.. I often refer to their confession during the service just to remind myself what they believe.. I think I hear them through a Lutheran lens and sometimes hear Lutheranish doctrines, but that's my fault.. They ought to be interpreted through a reformed lens.. Anyway, I plan to have a meeting with the pastor to discuss my concerns.. The way he handles the sacrament in particular really confuses me.. He says all the same things Lutherans say and never qualifies it with words like "symbol, represents, or spiritual".. But their confessions are quite clear, so I need to ask him what's up..
@@meyaomeyao indeed, they ought to be understood through their Reformed lens. They may use similar words, they may say that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ, but that's not really what they believe. They don't believe that Christ's body and blood are present in the bread and wine, they believe He is in heaven and that only when the elect partake of it, their spirits ascend into heaven to consume Christ. They believe only the elect ascend and partake of the body and blood, for everyone else it is just plain bread and wine. This view disregards the admonition of St. Paul in 1 Cor 11:27-30: "Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep." The Lord be with you.
Great video, I would just like to add something about what you said about how reformed and Presbyterian believers hold a higher regard to the old testament. I don't know about Presbyterians that much, but in the Dutch reformed circles I'ma member inwe read the 10 commandments every Sunday in the morning service, it's part of our tradition. It is good to hear the Law every week because it reminds why we need a savior, and that we fail in every regard to keep the Law of God, it also holds us accountable so that we may do better. Keep up with the great videos RZ and God bless.
The hard thing is that the large majority of Lutherans in the US don’t force anyone to convert or change their set beliefs of their religion, Christian or not. I am in fact a member of a Lutheran church, and I can say that no one goes out of their way to convince or change other people’s mind forcefully. They will answer questions if you have any, and most will respect the other’s point of view. I do believe that there are extreme Lutheran churches, and/or misguided teaching taught in said churches around the world (albeit more of European origin). However given my experience switching between multiple different Lutheran-based churches in the USA, I’ve come to the conclusion that many of the negative stereotypes pointed at the Lutheran branch of Christianity aren’t at all present in most modern-traditionalist representations in the US. All this aside, Luther’s teaching and interpretation of the Bible and Christianity as a whole takes a more word-for-word approach, which tends to be more accurate when interpreting scripture than with ideologies of other divisions of Christianity (like Baptist). Doing research about things is great in its own right, but sometimes you need both perspectives in an argument to balance out some bias. We are all on the same side here, there are just some misunderstandings. Thank you for reading! God bless ✌️
Yo zoomer, I just finished the video, after watching it, I can say that some of my respect for Calvinism went up, it definitely isn’t a system that Calvin randomly thought of. That being said, I feel like my ongoing conversation to Catholicism is correct, and some of my doubts and difficulties are going away.
@@redeemedzoomer6053 Ah yes, Jordan B Cooper, he was one of my favorite theologians, he’s my favorite Lutheran theologian and my source for good Lutheran theology. I used to watch his videos to cope with being Protestant. I’ll check it out again.
usually when people are unhappy with Protestantism, it's cuz they go to a low-chruch or contemporary Protestant church. Is this true in your case? @@thelonelysponge5029
@@thelonelysponge5029 As I suspected. Any churches on this map near you? www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1PNd_sJagci84PyKmGC6M5VJtaLMEWxg&ll=40.592694440099265%2C-97.49252817041256&z=5
You should do a video refuting strawman arguments against Catholicism and Orthodoxy (such as that they believe in works based salvation, or that they commit idolatry, etc). I'm saying this as a Baptist btw.
Please pray for my girlfriend and me. We are deeply in love and want to be married, but her mental illness causes her to not trust me. God knows my heart and mind, but He has not chosen to heal her yet. She, her children, and I are all suffering.
Calvinistic circular reasoning. We believe in Calvinism because of Calvinism. Never mind the scores of examples in Scripture that clearly show otherwise. Just look at Irresistible Grace. Scripture says that God wants all to be saved and in the OT and NT God pleads, urges, and grieves over those who reject his grace. But, it’s irresistible. Calvinism says that they put their emphasis on glorifying God. But in the end, portray a God that is less loving than they are. Yikes.
I don't believe in god and I can't get myself past what I perceive are the fallacies and impossibilities associated with the Christian religion. It sucks to think that the reason for this may have been because the supreme God of the universe either just passed me by or actively hardened my heart so that I could not believe in him, and because of this- I'm going to have to face eternal conscious torment and damnation. It's not because I haven't sought God out, I've been to church many times. If I spent as much time thinking about ghosts, big foot or aliens as I do thinking about God, I probably could convince myself to believe in any of the above.
Yeah, coming from a Calvinist myself it is troubling. However, I think it is the most correct. My mind could change, as I will do a great deal of reading. I sincerely hope you come to faith. I am kind of arrogant with my faith sometimes. I was always a Christian so I feel that I can't convince you. I have had periods of wavering faith though. One thing I would like to criticize is that comparing aliens to the existence of God isn't exactly an apples-to-apples comparison as you indicated. I am glad you have wrestled with your unbelief. I hope you continue to do so, maybe even read Kierkegaard.
8:36 not a Lutheran so I don’t really have a dog in this fight, but how do you reconcile that statement with Acts 7:51? Maybe part of it is that the constraints/limitations of language cannot adequately describe the complexities of salvation?
The last argument "Luther thinks the church is for the people while Calvinist thinks the people are for the church" Reformulated it's like "Is God's kingdom for the people to be saved or the people saved are for God's kingdom ?" Which is a very good question
Sacraments don’t save - after talking about partaking of His Body and His Blood in John 6:52-59, Jesus goes right into John 6:63 and says physical bread and blood don’t save. ”It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.“
@@JamesPreus nowhere in John 6 does he say that the sacraments forgive sins. Or anywhere in the Bible. I think where Jesus said this “is my body” is In Luke: And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”“ Luke 22:19 If you have a verse that says sacraments forgive sins, I want to read that - I want to find God’s truth, but what I’ve read on the sacraments doesn’t point to that they save, but we are to do them regardless.
9:50 Is it a contradiction, or is it a strong stance to not go beyond what the Bible says to harmonize seemingly contradictory statements? 23:30 How do you stay in a liberal church and have a positive impact without budding heads with the elders/pastor on a very regular basis?
Calvenism is a little bit like the Quran because the Quran is always saying how "God guides whom he wills," and that includes towards and away from him.
I believe God's elect to be people who don't just believe, but they know that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins, and proclaimed Him in their hearts as Lord and Savior
I decided become Catholic. This video showed me again that i dont like the discussion between Protestant view at all and that Catechism of THE Church holds way more satisfactory answers.
As a european Christian, the main 2 things that draw people away from the Lutheran church is- 1) The lack of them in Western Europe (England, France, Spain etc) 2) The church itself
So if God wanted you saved, then you can say no? Does that mean your will is stronger then God’s will? That would also mean God can’t see the future, how does God know the future then? Was there a chance that Judas wouldn’t have betrayed Jesus, and then no one would be saved?
John 6:51: 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. BUT 1st Corinthians 11: 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. You've got to read the WHOLE Bible! RZ didn't disprove the Catholic position at all!
21:31 "We exist to glorify god" Could you make a video elaborating about this? I mean this sounds like you are supposted to praise god for eternity after death. And you are at the mercy of god to give you breaks?
You have a discord or something? Anyway, I don't know if my church counts as historical (history back to 1630 or so, but the current building was built in the 1840s by a fairly prolific architect of the time who worked on some other churches and some other things) but I think its teaching is sound Presbyterian teaching (biased though because the minister is my dad, lol). How would I go about adding it to the map?
16:25 1Cor11:27-29 would like to have a word with you about this. I find your take on "...whoever eats of my body and blood..." here to be way, way, to literal and pedantic; and in that sense Pharisaical.
We wonder what may have been if Luther, Zwingli and Calvin had started a unified Reformation. What separated them theologically appears miniscule. Amen.
Very good video, and well-based on Cooper, but again it seems to me that you didn't emphasize the names that the weekly cerimony has: Lutherans call it "Divine Service" (not "Worship Service") because they kind of come for God to save them. Presbys (and for that matter Methodists, Baptists and my fellow Pentecostals) call it "Worship Service" because we emphasize our giving of worship to God. I don't mean you misrepresented, it just becomes more clear when you use the names as the traditions state them. Also, I kind of agree with the Lutheran view of the service, but I realize that the Reconquista, failing or succeeding, is based on the Calvinist view of the service and that's very good. We need to glorify God, and I was always taught that the Church's job is to "substitute the fallen angels on eternally glorifying God" , if that makes any sense. Great video!
Isn't the Lutheran view of salvation, that by Jesus strength and sacrifice (and not by our own) we are saved, and that Grace is freely offered to all who believe and are baptized? Our own contribution, if you can call it that, is simply not to reject it. The "credit" a person gets for this, is on the level of allowing someone to persuade you to stop stabbing yourself in the face with a fork. I could be wrong, though.
Based. This video is rad. And I can also confirm what RZ said at the eleven-o-six mark. He’s right that Lutherans DO say, “True believers can fall away from the faith.” And he’s right about why they believe it. I once asked a Lutheran whether he had any scriptural support, or at least historical support, for believing that teaching and he literally admitted: “We don’t actually have any support for it. We just believe in it because we need to in order to make sense of our baptismal regeneration doctrine.”
That person is entirely wrong. One of the very reasons I'm considering Lutheranism is that Perseverance of the Saints is seeming less and less biblical the more I read Scripture. The evidence that genuine believers can fall away is overwhelming. As for historical support, you will have trouble finding anyone in the early Church who believes in Calvin's version of eternal security rather than Augustine's and Luther's Perseverence of the Elect. Edit: Redeemed Zoomer just put out a tweet admitting outright that no one before the Reformation believed in the Calvinist version of Eternal Security. There you go.
I am doing a research paper on the Protestant reformation, more specifically on what caused it to gain popularity, I thought sense you talk about it so much you would have some resources to give me?
I’ve always believed that God loved us so He gave us a choice of whether we want to spend eternity with Him or without Him. I believe that love is a choice. I believe that Jesus Christ died and rose from the dead. I believe the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I would love to spend enternity with Jesus. What does that make me?
What if I don't believe I could bring anything positive to the church? And it's not that I would bring anything bad, but that I wouldn't be able to do anything good.
So your will was not in bondage to sin before God releasd it through the action of the Holy Spirit? If you believe that it was, then you don't believe in Free Will. If you think this is not free will, then you don't understand the terminology we use because we do believe man has Free Agency (the ability to choose ones action) but we differentiate it from Free Will (the ability to choose God and obey Him).
O.P. we were dead in sin and trespasses and the natural man find’s the things of God foolish. (Eph. 2:1, 1 Cor 2:14). Only those who are destined (Strongs 5021: Tasso: appoint, determine, set, ordain) to be believers become believers. (Acts 13:48).
LBCF 7.3 This Covenant is revealed in the Gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of Salvation by the seed of the woman,[1] and afterwards by farther steps, untill the full discovery thereof was completed in the new Testament;[2] and it is founded in that Eternal Covenant transaction, that was between the Father and the Son, about the Redemption of the Elect;[3] and it is alone by the Grace of this Covenant, that all of the posterity of fallen Adam, that ever were saved, did obtain life and a blessed immortality; Man being now utterly uncapable of acceptance with God upon those terms, on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.[4] Really excited for the day Redeemed Zoomer actually studies the actual reformed baptist position, and tries to represent our views as charitably as he does other groups. We believe in one covenant of grace that brings salvation to all with faith, even if our language differences of ordinances and administrations leads us to a different meaning for baptism and circumcision. We agree on so much more than he is willing to acknowledge.
You constantly miss the mark on lutherianism. Let's take communion as an example. Yes the body and blood is always present in the communian, but - and that is the essential part - only believers recieve it, cuz sola fide. So no non-believers don't get it. You also miss the mark on catholics there. Being lutheran I have to explain this with less confidence, so take it for what it is. With catholics the body and blood are not initially present in the sacrement, but the communion is transformed into the body and blood only when a believer recieves it - they call it transsubstanciation. Btw, your first line made me laugh really hard, because it's so true. Most of us think your way worse than catholics. Personal interpretation, that's because you kinda got it as far as reformation is concerned but than make twisted turns in your thinking that mess it all up. Like that stuff you claimed about the communion. That's just so weird. Also lutherianism doesn't diminish the dominion of god - that's just wacky. Could god create beings for the sole purpose of being damned. Sure he is all-powerful. But he never would, because he is all-good. And that's how we know everybody can be saved. No mysterium, no contradiction - you're just overthinking it, I believe. I also don't get why you think god would need anybodies aid in holding up his sovereignity - that's not a thing the almighty needs in any cappacity - are you kidding? If you are actually interested in lutherianism, I suggest you get a second source. I respect converts, but by their nature, they tend to be overeager and often fail to emphasize the important parts. That's fine and natural, since they have put a lot of thought into it and want to apply it. But they tend to miss the mark. Didn't mean to sound harsh, just wanted to clear this up. I actually find your channel quite entertaining. Also aside from the parts you mess up, you really sound like the lutheran church would be a perfect fit for you. Bless ya
Not being Calvinist is a positive note! You should look up Dr Leighton Flowers. He exegetes Romans 9 properly and points out what the Calvinists get wrong
Love your videos. However you present many differences without much distinction in this video. If a transcript of your comments was presented to a Christian person or really anyone looking for a church community their heads would spin.
Y’all say the Church has more authority than scripture because y’all composed the Bible, but than y’all cry and weep when the church adds the Filioque to the Nicene creed(another thing created by the Church, thus logically the Church had authority over it). The Bible, which was written by great prophets and theologians, is brushed off as less authoritative than the Church, but the Nicene creed(which was written by lesser theologians) is apparently above church authority, and no one can expand upon its doctrine(yeah, no one says that the creed was wrong, they just expand upon it). The people of the Eastern Orthodox Church are just a bunch of babies who appeal to mystery.
@@dreamoholicsexe7186 of course you can’t object to any of my claims, all you can say is “you don’t understand”, classical Eastern Orthodoxy 😂 ya’ll never change.
@@dreamoholicsexe7186 once again, like all “orthobros” all y’all say is “your historically inaccurate” without making an actual argument 😂 it’s because y’all have no actual argument, it’s just a bunch of empty words 😂 but you wouldn’t understand rhetoric, y’all never were the brightest.
Maybe I'm not educated enough on this issue, but I just don't see how double predestination doesn't lead to supralapsarianism. It seems to me that the two go hand in glove. If some people are predestined to Hell, then the only logical conclusion I see is that God made people to be damned. If this isn't the case, please explain how and why.
I dont really think he represented the lutheran view on predestination really good we dont believe in a strict predestination as Calvinists do we believe that God wants everybody to come to Christ but it is on the free will of every individuell to either accept or reject Christ thats why really much of your opinion against Lutheranism doesnt really hit the actual believe
