I Am Is Not Is Not

[@judithtaylor6713]

Wow! Tell it like it is. You’ve cut Calvinism off at the knees. Rock on indeed.

[@boisetoburgos]

As a Catholic, I also enjoyed your video. Well done!

[@judithtaylor6713]

I had ‘sacramentarian’ all wrong. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[@flashhog01]

Terrific video pastor. It can be uncomfortable for sacramentarians to apply this logic to other passages. One method of interpretation for one passage, another to a different passage making use of whatever tool possible to support the theology they bring to the text.

[@Sisoes1]

Parables are a distinct literary genre. Neither the "I am" statements in John nor the Institution of the Eucharist are of that genre.

[@1517CalvinMartin]

18:56-19:06-I'm a Calvinist viewer(with every intention of remaining Calvinist) and you're not losing me Pastor Fisk. I think you'd only lose me if you started denying the fundamentals of the Christian faith and became an atheist/agnostic or an ELCA type of liberal.

[@mysticmouse7261]

Amen Johnathan

[@chazjohannsen]

Dude, what is your theme song? It's AWESOME!!!

[@davidsteinart]

Wow. So Jesus isn't literally a vine, is just using that as a picture to show us that we must be connected to him "as" a vine is connected to its branches. Thanks for explaining that. For a second I thought he was making a symbolic statement to illustrate a greater truth.

[@Expnoob]

Hello pastor Fisk my religion class in gr.9 watch your vids all the time in fact you may know one of them anyways if ya could msg me

[@rukusfan1387]

Gracie, he said "and stuff like that"!

[@gomerzillmer]

So, not sure if anyone else watched History Channel's (that should tell you what you need to know about the faithfulness of the material) "The Bible", but I have a question for Fisk based on a scene in the show: Ninja Angels, yes or no?

[@Outrider74]

What!?!? No "Shawshank Redemption" clip when talking about John 8:12!?!?!

[@RomGabe]

my brother (who is not a regular viewer of WE tv) said "the start of the youtube video is a bit disturbing"

[@rukusfan1387]

Is means is.

[@judithtaylor6713]

✅

[@nrse82]

On second thought, maybe the word 'literal' does not mean what you think it means.

[@localSpacer]

Sock I to me!

[@davidkueny2444]

Hmmm. With all due respect, at least *some* of the "I am" statements in John cannot be taken literally. For example, He cannot *really* be a gate, because you can't get into a place by entering into a gate *and then staying there.* You have to continue *out* of the gate to get where you want to go. If you just wait around in the gate, you won't go anywhere. On the contrary, does He not command us to "remain in Me"? This is clearly not a claim to be an actual gate, but a claim to be the only means of entrance into the Kingdom. Nor can Jesus really be the Resurrection. He can be the *cause* of the Resurrection, the *firstfruits* of the Resurrection, and the *only possible necessary or sufficient condition* for the Resurrection, sure. But at the end of the day, the Resurrection is an *event,* whereas Christ is a *person,* and events can't be people. Events happen, but people don't *happen,* people *exist.* And you make the suggestion that, rather than Jesus being metaphorically the bread/the light/the gate/etc., bread/light/gates/etc. might really be metaphors for Jesus (11:41 onwards, you say that these things "are really symbolic for Him"). This is a good suggestion, emphasizing that many elements of the human condition turn out to point to, and be fulfilled in, Christ. But it also plays into the sacramentarian's hand, seeing as the sacramentarian *wants* bread to be a symbol for Christ - or, at the very least, for certain pieces of bread to be symbols for His body. So, with respect, I think your arguments for the Physical Presence of Christ's body and blood in communion are inconclusive. Last edited 9:02 AM CST, May 6, 2019

[@kuhatsuifujimoto9621]

the language and context in the institution is different than the other statements. Jesus did not just say "my body is the bread," or "my blood is the wine." there was actual bread and wine present that he called his body and blood.

[@FAITHandLOGIC]

Messiah was a Rabbi and spoke in parables. If you take parables literally, you miss the point.

[@nrse82]

Keep going with that train of logic and let us know how we are literal sheep & literal branches. But keep doing it in a condescending & arrogant way (which by the way might be the reason non-Lutherans stop watching you, rather than your superior intellect & rock solid theology).

[@JohnPerling]

Fisk, Check out the greek of John 4:26 and John 8:28 - and be amazed English translations provide a "he" - there ain't no "he" there - these are some raw "Yahweh"/"I am" statements and John is filled with them. Beware of any time Jesus says,"I am he" in English because it the English editors are being overly helpful, Cheers!

[@wcbpolish]

I strongly dislike that screaming sheep.

[@SuperTreeEye]

54th view and third like! Yosh

[@LRGabriel]

So if I hold up a photo of my husband and say, "This is my husband, with whom I sleep every night," does that mean I sleep with a piece of paper? I think there is a difference between saying something is a metaphor and saying something is a spiritual rather than physical reality. For example, rather than saying Jesus didn't mean he was an actual shepherd but was just using that term as a metaphor, I think it is more accurate to say he wasn't an actual physical/earthly shepherd but the spiritual shepherd, of his spiritual (not physical) sheep. When he talked about His kingdom, He wasn't using the term as a symbol or metaphor, but was referring to a spiritual/eternal kingdom, not a physical/earthly one (which is what the people were looking for). Humans (esp. unregenerate people without the HS to enlighten their minds) tend to think on a material/temporal level, but Christ spoke of spiritual/eternal matters that could only be understood by those whom the H.S. opened their hearts to understand; The darkened mind of natural man cannot conceive spiritual truths.. Another example of this is Jesus conversation with Nicodemus about being born again.

[@shogunshogun]

LR Gabriel So if I hold up my pillow and say, "This is my pillow, which I use to sleep on every night," does that mean that pillow symbolically represents my pillow, which I use to sleep on every night? Context is needed in order to make exegesis from a passage in Scripture. The context of the words of Institution dictates that it should be taken literally.

[@Hannodb1961]

I find your reasoning very unconvincing. The basic nature of a metaphor is to say: "A is B" when you clearly mean "A is like B" Despite trying to create false dilemma of confusion as to what is real and what is metaphorical, the laws of language is clear when it comes to interpreting "A is B". 1) If the context allows for a literal interpretation, then obviously, it is literal: "I am not the Christ", "I am the descendant of David", etc. 2) If it is clear from our everyday understanding that A cannot be B, then the default understanding is a metaphor: "I am the light, I am the door, This is my blood". Clearly, Lutherans do not believe that unbelievers can see no difference between day and night? Clearly they can distinguish between light and dark. If unbelievers is "in the dark", and yet capable of noticing daylight, clearly this is a spiritual metaphor. Likewise, Jesus is not a door made of wood. The definite article actually emphasizes that it is symbolic. Jesus is _the_ door. But clearly, He is not a door, and we have thousands of other doors. If Jesus said He was the only literal door in existence, He would be lying. Clearly, the metaphorical nature this sentence is clear: Salvation is only possible through Him. He never was, and never will be a literal door incarnate. (Note, just because something is a metaphor, doesn't mean the meaning is any less real or any more ambiguous. The meaning of the metaphor is not ambiguous, and is literally true. 3) If "A is B" is intended to be understood literally, even though our normal understanding would not allow it, then extraordinary emphasis is required. Jesus proved He is the literal Resurrection, by resurrecting others from the dead, and by rising from the dead himself. Had he not done that, his words would've been logically interpreted as symbolic. There is extraordinary emphasis confirming the literal understanding of these words. Having taken all of this into account, do we see any extraordinary emphasis on the part of Jesus that we should take the bread and wine as His literal body and blood? No? So therefore, we take it as a metaphor. Does this mean there is doubt as to the meaning of the metaphor, and the reality of that meaning? No. At 15:56, you really start to undermine your position: The "I am" part is not the metaphor, the "vine" part is. Well, ofcause. Was there ever any confusion about that? Likewise, just as bread and wine sustain our bodies, the Sacrifice of Jesus sustain our eternal lives. It is the literal breaking of His body, and the literal shedding of His blood (of which the bread and wine are metaphors) that gives us eternal live. How about the fulfillment of the Passover sacrifice. Jesus says He is the Lamb. Are we to understand that He was literally present in the Jewish passover Lamb as well? If not, why not? But let us suppose the bread and wine *is* the literal blood and body of Jesus, not only would the Bible unambiguously make that clear, just as his bodily resurrection is made unambiguously clear, but it would also explain the purpose, the function of Jesus's presence in the bread and wine. Am I suppose to be joined to Christ through partaking the Communion? Well, then how does this correspond with Galathians: "You are saved through grace by - not the communion, but - faith"? Can I be saved if I believe in Jesus but never had the opportunity to partake in communion? If no, then you're back to Roman sacramentalism. If yes, then why is it necessary for Christ to be present in the bread and wine? What purpose does it serve? It seems to me that this Lutheran doctrine is a remnant from the Roman church. Not only is the defense of this doctrine based on an inconsistent read of the text, but it is itself inconsistent with the doctrines of faith and grace alone.

[@barelyprotestant5365]

It's only inconsistent based on a modernist setting. Can you show a single time in Scripture where St. Paul or one of the Evangelists says, "Yo guys; I'm totes legit kidding about this being Jesus' Body and Blood. He didn't REALLY mean that." In fact, that's what they ask in John 6, and Jesus is like, "Um, let me repeat that..." Let's not forget 1 Corinthians 10:16: The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? I guess that means, "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the Blood of Christ? It's actually not. The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the Body of Christ? Haha, Jesus was actually totes kidding about that." Add to that the fact that St. Ignatius calls people who deny that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus HERETICS, and it's a knock-down win. I mean, do you REALLY think that the Bishop born in AD 50, trained by the Apostles Peter and Paul, and died in AD 107 knows less than the uber smart modernistic and anti-supernaturalists like you??? -_-

[@Hannodb1961]

James Gadomski A sign of a failed argument is when you need to strawman your opponent's argument to make your own look good. I am not a "anti-supernaturalist", I believe in the ressurection, don't I? I also believe in the miracles of Jesus and the virgin birth. The difference between you and me is not that I am anti-supernaturalist, but that I'm consistent in my hermaneutics. The bread and wine being the body and blood of Jesus is no less metaphorical than Jesus being a door and a rock. The wine in the cup is not made of blood, just as Jesus was not made of rock. Moreover, there is no theological reason why the bread and wine *should* become flesh and blood, for we are saved by what Jesus did on the cross, not by partaking in communion. As for relying on Ignatius for a knock-down win - you are sorely mistaken. There are many church fathers who held the opposite view as well, such as Tertullian. Cherry picking church fathers does not help your cause.

[@barelyprotestant5365]

Hannodb1961 Uh, Tertullian? That's a shaky one at best. Pray, tell me where this kind-of-a-heretic guy said this? Besides, you're ignoring the fact that St. Ignatius KNEW the Apostles. That's kinda better credentials than Tertullian. I mean, I'd kinda sorta agree with you that Jesus saying "I am the door" and "This is My Body/Blood" should both be taken as equally literally...if it weren't for the fact that the latter phrase is used and repeated MULTIPLE times, and is constantly reaffirmed as meant to be taken literally. I mean, it's hard to avoid the whole, "Does Jesus really mean He wants us to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood?" line in John 6, with Jesus responding, "Um, HOW many times do I need to repeat this? EAT MY FLESH AND DRINK MY BLOOD OR YOU HAVE NO LIFE IN YOU," then repeating it half a dozen times in various ways, and NEVER claiming, "Oh, by the way, broskies: I'm totes just pulling your leg and don't actually mean I want you to literally eat my flesh and drink my blood. Totes kidding, broskies; totes." Then there's 1 Corinthians 10:16, where it's kinda unavoidable: St. Paul's like, "Hey, when you partake in the bread and cup, you're actually taking part in the Body and Blood."

[@barelyprotestant5365]

Hannodb1961 barelyprotestant.blogspot.com/2015/02/yes-im-anglo-catholic-part-1-real.html

[@Hannodb1961]

James Gadomski Look, I'm not going to argue with you about this. I've looked into the matter, and found the Lutheran argument to be extremely shallow. I've tried debating this issue before, and it was futile. If you want to believe that you're drinking real blood and eating real flesh, then go right ahead. I will say this though: You're argument from John 6 is grasping at straws. When Jesus said these words, He hasn't instigated communion yet. These words clearly point to future events, but the question is "what future event"? Jesus says that you need to "eat his flesh and drink his blood" in order to be saved. Are we saved through partaking of communion, or through the death and resurrection of Christ? Clearly, it's the latter, not the former, so Jesus was referring to His crucifixion, not to communion. We "eat his flesh and drink his blood" through faith in the crucifixion of Jesus, and communion is a visual representation of that fact. I have a consistent theology, where everything in the Bible ties together and make sense. If you prefer an incoherent theology where you fill the gaps by appealing to "mystery", then I can't convince you otherwise.