@@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."
@@kidflersh7807 That's "No true Scotsman" fallacy. You can't just say that someone is not Lutheran because they disagree on something not even adressed by the Confessions. If we would say that Anglicans, Presbyterians and Catholics are Christians, why won't we allow them to partake. We might convert them to Lutheranism. (It worked for me, I converted to Lutheranism even though I was baptised Eastern Orthodox) And Paul in 1 Corinthians was speaking about personal disbelief and unrepentance, not about membership.
Good bless Mr. Zoomer. Just joined a PCA church (previously non-denom). This vid helped me combine all that I’ve learned about the reformed faith into one focal point, Gods sovereignty 🙏
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 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.
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 kinda of agree that going to liberal churches to “reform” them is a good idea. But I think you should make the distinction that only knowledged Christians should do that. People who are young in faith would be better off first going to a conservative church to get a strong foundation.
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.
I'm a IELB (Evangelical Lutheran Church in Brazil) lutheran. We were once an LCMS-dependent synod, and were also part of the International Lutheran Council #ILCTeam
Resisting the Holy Spirit is Biblical. It is not a mere product of wanting the "warm fuzzies" of assurance: Acts 7:51 1 Thessalonians 5:19 Ephesians 4:30-31 Psalm 106:33 Isaiah 63:10 Hebrews 10:29 Luke 8:13, The problem isn't Lutherans trying to force Scripture to fit their concept of assurance, but the Reformed trying to force Scripture to fit their concept of God's Sovereignty.
I am just getting back into my Lutheran tradition, i have not been a member of a church since i was probably 11 (im 26 now). As a Lutheran, the Holy Spirit has always been with me, yet i consciously resisted. The Holy Spirit is now calling me back. I do not feel "born again", i feel like i am just coming back to God
@@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 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.
I do think you give a much better representation of Lutheranism than I often hear and I do appreciate that though I don't particularly tend to think everything you've mentioned is entirely true. For example, I don't think the totality of Lutheran ecclesiology during the Reformation was focused on faith while the Reformed cared more about grace. I think the Lutheran view tries to focus on grace through faith which is taught in Scripture as opposed to grace through faith and works that Rome taught. Faith was taught to be of greater importance because that's the part Rome didn't emphasize properly. The Lutheran view of the sacraments I would also contest isn't only a derivative of our emphasis of the giving of faith and receiving of grace for salvation, but it's also rooted in the fact that it's nearly univeral within the earliest times of the church to believe in true presence and baptismal regeneration (with some distinctives in nuance). Dr. Cooper is actually points this out in nearly every conversation he has on the sacraments. Maybe you could argue a Reformed view (non-federal vision) of the sacraments exists historically, but my analysis of the church fathers seems to suggest more of a Lutheran/Anglican view or Catholic or Eastern Orthodox view depending on which father you like. I hope this doesn't sound salty or angry. I am trying to give my perspective from years of being a Lutheran and studying this content. I like the content you make and I've learned a lot more of the Reformed view on certain issues thanks to you!
You actualy helped me to look deeper into Christian theology and to grow stronger in my faith, so thanks! By the way i am Orthodox but still love your vids, i like to see how others see the Bible and stuff.
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.
Hmm, hey! I like you, and I am LCMS (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod for all those who dont know). I went to a PCA church growing up so I even enjoyed their church! Keep preaching brother, but dont say we all hate you! Lol, I realize you are talking about history, but still, God bless you bro! ❤
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
kingdom craft is peak autism and I love it. If you made an 8 hour video commentary on Institutes while playing The Sims 3 or City Skylines I would watch the entire thing in one sitting.
I was predestined to come and leave this comment. It has been predetermined for me to tell you I love your videos Brother. Cannot wait for you to come back to the Ancient Churches.
16:38. Yes, but there is also in 1 Corinthians 11:27-30 : “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. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep." I think the issue of communion is a bit deeper than how you portray it.
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
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
Theres a lot of questions that come up about who God is when looking at it through the lens of "predestination". The biggest one for me would be what do you do with 2 Peter 3 where it's God's will that none should perish. The presbyterian view seems to be "dont question God, even if what's happening is undeniably evil. Who are we to question the inscrutable ways of God". My answer would be that God directly tells us to question and reason with Him otherwise we might be led away by every wind of doctrine! The real issue with reformation theology is the preoccupation with our legal standing with God and ultimately trying to answer the issue of "assurance of salvation". Reformation theology in many ways can work to affirm Satan charges that God is arbitrary, vengeful, untrustworthy and severe. The common retort I hear is "God has the right to be!" but would you ever feel safe or even comfortable spending eternity with a tyrannical god who could fly off the handle at the slightest misstep?
As interesting and instructive as always! Would love to see an update on your opinion about Methodism too, if it has changed much! Like many others you have helped me in grow closer to my faith, and as of now I have found my place in the Methodist Church (IMPR) God bless you
So in calvinist theology, what even is the point of sacraments' existence? God clearly has no need of them, since God could save someone without the use of baptism, so it has to be of some benefit for us to have this visible sign of God's grace. But from your explanation it seems to me to give us little to no benefit - sure, it may be a good experience (not so much if you're baptised as an infant), but it doesn't actually give you any information about your standing with God. You could have been saved long before your baptism, at the time of your baptism, long after it or you may actually be a reprobate and God will never use it to save you. Neither is it in any sense useful as a sign of God saving his people, because no one (except God) has any clue if the person being baptised will ever be saved. The sign doesn't correspond to the effect in any way and it seems like it's just more shadow rituals from the Old Testament, that only signify things to come, but without changing anything. How can something like this have such a high place in the New Testament, that did away with the shadows? I don't have much stake in this dispute, so I'm open to changing my mind, but it seems to me that Calvinists say that baptism saves only because Scripture says so, but it doesn't actually make any sense in their system. Not that you can't fit it there without creating a contradiction, but they don't serve any actual purpose.
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.
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.
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.
I just found you channel! Thanks for the video. I am a part of a modern type of church, but I acted to understand Lutheranism better, and I only hear briefly about Calvin's. I'm a bit late, but I don't mind.
I really want to see you on Jay Dyer regularly. I am dancing with converting to Orthodoxy and could listen to these conversations all day. That was such a fascinating debate, have you done a video on "Why I am not Orthodox"? Thanks brother, you made me see that there is hope for the younger generations. t. Gen X boomer. edit: You already did do a video on Orthodoxy that I will watch after this one.
Another great video. Is there any chance you could make a video about limited attonenment? I’ve personally been struggling with this issue, and would be interested on how a Calvinist argues this in accordance to such passages as 1 John 2:2, or 2 Peter 3:9.
Trying to help, but just look at the context of the epistles when they say that Jesus died for "all". Clearly it does not refer to all men, but the word all refers to Jews and Gentiles (as it is the context of the discussion). There are other examples of passages in which the word "all" is used in this way, but not to talk about salvation, as it is Hebraism. Then these passages can be clarified exegetically. However, people usually get too attached to them and forget all the other passages in which the Bible indicates that Jesus died only for his people/his sheep/his Church, which cannot be explained otherwise exegetically. As we do not believe that the Bible contradicts itself, we use the most abundant and clear passages to explain the others. I recommend watching videos from retired pastors and academics on the subject. While I love RZ's videos, he's not particularly strong at exegesis (and he never said he was).
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 ✌️
Lutheran here. We don’t deny that God gave us free will. But because of Original Sin we love that which is wicked. We are free to do what we will; we are not free from our own will.
He gave to Adam but because of original sin, our will is in bondage to sin until God free us. Free Will is not about you choosing your own actions (this is free agency) it is about you choosing God.
God gave us free will, but we gave it up and became enslaved to sin in the Fall. This is not Calvinist teaching, it is basic Biblical teaching affirmed across many Christian traditions.
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
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?
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?
I enjoy the content, but the constant clicking sounds are driving me crazy. I have been posting this to every kingdomcraft video so that hopefully RZ can see it.
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?
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?
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.
The fundamental difference, and the real issue here is actually something you said but didn’t realize- “Why I think the Calvinist view explains things better”. That’s actually totally true. The Calvinist views explain them better. But the point of the Lutheran view is NOT in explaining things well. The Lutheran doesn’t attempt that. The Lutheran takes what scriptures says, and accepts that. Without additional rational structures to make things make more sense. You showed why this is comparing apples to oranges only a minute into the video. 1:06
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.
I have a completely different view on baptism. I have never benn baptized, not once in my entire life, but I believe, and I'm showing the clear signs of being regenerate, of being born again, my heart has completely changed, because I believe. Scripture clearly says that baptism is of the spirit, not of water, there is a water baptism, and that is a covenantal sign, but being truly saved is a matter of the heart, not a matter of water.
I have celiac disease. Does that mean Calvinists believe I am not predestined for salvation because I can’t take communion. The body is wheat. Do I just give up then? I was diagnosed with celiac before becoming Christian. It’s been a struggle for me. Also should I not continue to attempt to save others? Important questions.
I'm Lutheran but the answer will be the same across all Protestants. Chiefly, we are saved by faith alone; if you aren't a repentant believer, you cannot be saved. What that means in this case is that you are still saved by your faith even if you haven't partaken in Baptism and or Communion. Now, that does not automatically mean the Sacraments can't work forgiveness and renewal of life - they absolutely do. What happens in the Sacraments is God bringing down his decree of old that you are justified by your faith in an earthly form. Essentially, God is declaring again that you are blameless, and as already stated, we are blameless by faith in Christ's sacrifice. If you believe in Christ but haven't taken the Sacraments, your salvation is no different than any other Christian. The only difference is the latter are receiving additional declarations of justification from God and the Spirit is working through them to strengthen faith. You have an unfortunate condition that has sadly barred you from Communion, but you are 100% saved by your faith.
Where in the new testament is written that Sunday is the Lords Day? I heard that the Vers in Revalation about the lords day is not about any specific day of the week..
I really do appreciate the notion of the church not serving the congregant, but the congregant serving the church. Going to a place where God can use you rather than someplace easy should be a far more central criteria if you're looking for a church.
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!
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.
Its very biblical once you believe the Church is the successor of the apostles. It also makes a lot of practical sense, as saying your sins out loudly and telling it to another person makes it feel more real and you will understand their severity more. And the priest can also help you get to the bottom of it and be better
Confessing your sins to other people is important, though it is in no way necessary for salvation. There could be practical value in having the priest be one of those people: for one thing, it takes a lot of trust to confess something like that to another person, and a priest should be trustworthy (though in this age, no system is perfect), ensuring that everyone has at least one person they can go to; for another, making confession a formalized, normalized, regularly scheduled event probably makes it a lot easier to do. I'm pretty sure the practical value is all there is, but that doesn't mean it's not worth doing.
