The Core Difference Between the Lutheran and Reformed Traditions

[@seanmoore9713]

These videos where you directly contrast Lutheran and Reformed beliefs have been extremely helpful.

[@leeenk6932]

I went from Roman catholic to Lutheran. I suppose if i were to see any other branch of Christianity being feasible, it be the reformed. In my opinion we're fairly close, but its the understanding of Christology, baptism, and the Lords supper (especially from the church fathers) that keeps me Lutheran.

[@DeerBay]

Repent. God bless you.

[@yeetoburrito9972]

Anglicanism 🥺🥺?

[@1SheepishWolf]

Amen, praise the lord brother welcome!

[@hjc1402]

May I ask what persuaded you from RC to Lutheranism

[@bigtobacco1098]

​@@yeetoburrito9972female ordination, gay marriage, charismatics... pass

[@lc-mschristian5717]

As an EX Reformed (Presbyterian) Calvinist and now a Confessiona,l Evangelical, Unaltered Augsburg Confession believing Lutheran I agree this as the main central difference between the two Reformed Churches which are truly worlds apart of each other. Thank you and God's peace be with you.

[@David.1517]

I have had the same change to Lutheranism but I see them closer than any other traditions as they both adhere to original sin and are monergists. Some Anglicans also believe in both but they are typically all over the place.

[@jalapeno.tabasco]

@@David.1517 Reformed are just Lutherans who go a little further when it comes to reasoning Double predestination and the sacraments

[@BamaTex777]

As a guy in the FV camp, I can actually appreciate Calvin and Luther, learning from both, without confusion or embarrassment. Appreciate the vid Cooper.

[@btodd777]

I’m fairly new to FV didn’t rally know it was a thing. I really like Doug Wilson any denominations I would feel at home in?

[@ethanlorenzo702]

What is FV?

[@liamflecksing2230]

​@@btodd777CREC is the FV denomination but personally I'd stay away.

[@David.1517]

​@@ethanlorenzo702heresy lol. The classical reformed camp even says so

[@philpockras4408]

Thanks for this. Clear and honest, while being respectful and brotherly. While I am confessionally Reformed, and affirm every point of divergence from confessional Lutheranism, I have the utmost respect for those who honestly hold to the Book of Concord, and rejoice where we concur in our understanding of Holy Scripture.

[@gatekeeper3232]

It is so refreshing to hear somebody accurately contrasting an opponents position. Rare thing in these times.

[@hexahexametermeter]

50:30 "Calvin makes faith the defining factor" Why doesn't Luther, being an Augustinian monk follow the words of Augustine? "To what purpose do you make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten already." On John 6.

[@pierrebassel2109]

Re-watching this podcast during the reformation anniversary is something else❤

[@RealSnail3D]

I asked God to give me wisdom about what he meant when he said ‘my body and, my blood’. God be praised, finally I understand the simplicity of the means of Grace! And i say amen and that you Jesus!!

[@Robofish22877]

Thank you Dr. Cooper! This is definitely one of my most favorite videos you have done! I learned so much about the difference between Reformed and Lutheran thinking. When I was a teenager I had reformed seminarians tutor me and they always pushed the Westminster Confession of faith at me and I had no idea what they were talking about. It was like listening to your cousin tell you about his home life, and you were confused because even though you were related your home experiences were very different.

[@dallasbrat81]

Thank your for your online discussions. I am going to a LCMS church this Sunday in part to your channel discussions😊

[@bjw8806]

At the 52:20 mark I think you find where the two traditions can have a conversation. Calvin - faith allows the believer to partake and communion in and with Christ. Luther- Christ is objectively present but faith allows the benefit of and reception of the grace. In the Lutheran view then , though Christ is present , one cannot access the fullness without the faith of the believer. It’s like trying to drink a cup with a lid without a straw . The liquid is there truly but you can really get to it without a straw. Whereas Calvin would say the liquid becomes a reality once the straw is used. In the end however in both case the person drinks with a straw.

[@poordoubloon10]

Warfield’s accusation of sacerdotalism probably has as much to do with the fact that the ‘means of grace’ require a minister conveying them - if the ‘means of grace’ were simply abstract things that (although standing between Christ and the sinner) did not involve a third human-party, they would take no shots at it. The fact of the matter is, his accusation is on-point and far from a criticism, we Lutherans need to regain our understanding that the office of the ministry is indeed a mediatorial role - for of course, it is Christ’s office! Something the Calvinists will never embrace. Enough with this Pietistic fear of Reformed accusations of ‘sacramentalism’ or ‘sacerdotalism’; we should embrace these these insults as badges of honor - we Lutherans are Evangelical CATHOLIC Christians, not Reformed Protestants. So when they hurl these and like insults at us, they are confessing that we are not of the same cloth - let’s do the same rather than hide from our differences.

[@guilhermeioshuabelmont7326]

That is why Apostolic Succession should be taken way more seriously by the confessional American Lutherans than it is currently. It is something that was never meant to be abandoned as an obsolete adiaphorous polity choice by the reformers, the notion that things could work differently from the tradition of the (lower case c) catholic Church was granted on exceptional situations such as in Saxon at the time of the Reform and in the founding of LCMS. If validly ordained Bishops with apostolic authority didn't ordain new priests by negligence and persistence on heresies, then ministers of second order (presbyters) could elect and ordain new priests to continue God's work. This is not, however, the context in which Lutheranism exists right now, because there are confessional Lutheran Bishops in the line of Apostolic Succession already in full communion with us that could and are happy to ordain our presidents as bishops and give continuity to this beautiful and good tradition, but because of the bizarre congregationalist model that American Lutheranism chose to persist, this would never happen in our lifetime. Instead of maintaining what was given to us by the tradition of the Holy Catholic Church, we insist in practices of modern evangelicalism, which gives room to all sorts of anomalies to be present in our Church, such as "contemporary liturgy", black painted fog machines Hillsong worship churches, "liturgical dancing", laity giving the Eucharist and absolution to Ministers or ministering It themselves, and the list go on.

[@OnBelayClimbOn]

I had to go full stop when you mentioned Mercersburg theology; unless you're in the RCUS I didn't know that anyone even knew about this. Dr. Jordan, you are a true and loving scholar. I appreciate this series because it's really helping me understand and appreciate Lutheran theology as I never have before; and yes I am in the RCUS. Also the reading you did from Herman Bavinck was extremely helpful. Keep up that great work!

[@surikat-q9i]

Actually, Jordan is a former ''young and restless calvinist'', he lived in these circles and know them well, but, when the truth was revealed to him, he was converted to confessional lutheranism.

[@jrhemmerich]

This was so very helpful. I come from the more low church reformed Baptist view on this issue. But recently have come to understand the difference between a pure memorialist (Zwinglian) view and the spiritual presence view (via Dr. Ortlund). The spiritual presence view seems more consistent with Jn. 6. But progressing more into the distinctions between Reformed and Lutheran views on real presence has been a bit of work. And this was super helpful in flushing these issues out. It was simple to distinguish between the Reformed and Roman Catholic view because, taking the view that subjective faith, when united with the taking of the elements, in the act of repentance, and thanksgiving toward God, is what makes Christ present. The denial of ex opere operato, and the objective transformation of the elements by the words spoken over it, while maintaining a true invitation to Christ by the words spoken over the elements seemed to be the basic distinction. Your thoughts on this complicate matters a bit. The issue as I previously understood it, was about the mode of presence--about where Christ was, in his body in heaven and thus in the elements by the Spirit, which seemed a decent enough explanation (though most Calvinists today would want to defend the "extra" in our Christological understandings, which might be an internal point of tension, that runs against the Calvinist argument at this point, but that's just a passing thought). But your connection of this issue to the universal offer of Christ for salvation helps me see why this is more significant an issue. I am also a sort of 6-point Calvinist, in so far as I believe that God's has a dual intention to offer Jesus universally as a provision for all, but also an intent to make this effective for the elect. I would agree with the Lutheran against double predestination in the affirmative sense, because I'm convinced that God ordained to give man the power of real agency, and that man irrevocably falls into sin by his own fault (which is the source of his reprobation), while some are saved out of this state by God's positive redemptive election. I think this is technically called infralapsarianism, I'm not sure if this is exactly the same as the Lutheran denial of double predestination. I've seen some reformed insist that supra and infra are both double predestinarian, but that's not clear to me, as it seems that it is the way in which God ordains sin, whether permissively through the free agency of man, or by direct decree of sinful actions, which is the very question at issue (RC Sproul, Sr. would be an advocate of the infralapsarian view as I understand it). To say the mere logic of election to salvation is also the active cause of determining a person to condemnation, seems to narrow a definition of double predestination, as the dispute is not over the logical polarity of the decision of election to salvation, but is over the "immediate cause" of a sinful will in man (God or man?), which is the root of his reprobation/condemnation. So, when you connect the objective presence of Christ in the Eucharist, to the universal offer of Christ, that perks my interest. I can see the systematic relation between those things. What I wonder is how systematically one should tie the eucharist to the soteriological process as a whole. Is the offer and call to the table of Christ made to the church or to the world? It seems that the call to believe upon him was made to the world in Jn. 6, and that the world was told the implications of this was a spiritual feasting upon Christ's person as the source of life (which, because of their hard hearts, was a stumbling stone for them). But on the other hand, the eucharist itself was offered by Christ in the upper room only to those that had outwardly responded to this call and been baptized, and so were already believers. So I wonder whether we should use the doctrine of the universal offer of salvation in Christ, and his death for all, as a reason for believing in the objective presence of Christ in the elements apart from faith? Is the sacrament the universal offer, which his death was, or is it the particular application of it to those that repent and remember that universal offer? (Spurgeon is a Calvinistic Baptist that would also accept the universal offer of salvation in Christ). Regarding systematic consistency, it is also interesting that Bavinck argues (I think in Vol. 4) against salvation through general revelation based upon an insistence of the Spirit working through the means of grace found in the scriptures. So, it seems on the issue of scripture he argues more like a Lutheran on the means of grace. Again, systematic consistency? You raise an interesting point about assurance and whether that should relate to faith or to baptism. But I'm not sure I see the logic of this. Don't Lutherans insist upon the possibility of falling away? And the Calvinist would rather say that the person's faith was not real. In both cases the baptism does not necessitate assurance of salvation (though for different reasons). So, assurance does not seem like it should dictate our view of what role baptism plays in regeneration. That was too long a comment, but your explanation of this issue was great and gives me a lot more to think about.

[@surikat-q9i]

Jordan, put subtitles. There is an international audience that want to follow any word with accuracy. Thank you.

[@angelbonilla4243]

He speaks too fast.

[@johnwilhelm385]

Really appreciate your presentations! Thanks!

[@Gregorycrafter]

Dr. Jordan B. Cooper, much respect to you, but I must say that you don't fully understand the nuances of Reformed Eucharistic Theology. First off, there are actually three camps in this regard within the Reformed tradition; that being of "symbolic instrumentalism" (Calvin's camp), "symbolic parallelism" (Bullinger's camp), and "symbolic memorialism" (Zwingli's camp). [A. B. Gerrish, the lord's supper in the reformed confessions] The first two overlap significantly (even to the point where they are often lumped together), and are both only similar to the third camp in terms of the terminology used--the first and second camp, often use the same terminology and phrasing as the third camp, but mean it in a completely different way. The first two camps are the majority positions in classical reformed theology, and the third camp is only now becoming more prevalent (especially among the laity) via influence from low-church denominations that are culturally more common in countries like America. Where the first two camps overlap, is in the following: "The blessed Eucharist is a sign and seal of the covenant, in which the body and blood of Christ is spiritually present through the sacramental union of the sign (the bread, and the wine) and the thing signified (the body and blood of Christ), which are united from the consecration by the Word. All who partake of the elements are given both the sign and the thing signified, but the thing signified is only received through faith. In the reception of the things signified, the true body and blood of Christ are spiritually communicated to us by the Holy Spirit, in which we receive the remission of sins and the nourishment for our souls. Those who partake of the elements in an unworthy manner--either of unrepentance or unbelief--do not receive the things signified, but rather drink and eat condemnation on themselves." (note, I am not a theologian, so it is possible that my wording is not entirely accurate, but I did try to be as accurate as possible) Where those two camps diverge is that in the former, is that the thing signified is received through the elements, and in the latter, the thing signified is received simultaneously with the elements-the latter is slightly closer to the third camp as it does not tie the thing signified to the sign as much as the first camp does; essentially, the view in the first camp is that God works through the sacrament of Communion, and the view in the second camp is that God works apart but with the sacrament. The third camp, in contrast, instead believes that Christ body and blood is not present in the Eucharist and the only thing we receive is the memorial remembrance of what has already taken place. Of course, this camp is drastically opposed to the two other camps and should not even be considered Reformed-Zwingli was, ironically, closer to the Anabaptists, really. As I have said, the only thing that the other two camps share with it is the wording, but for instance, when Zwingli says “symbol” he means literally a bare symbol, but when Calvin says “symbol” he instead means it in a way where it is truly united with what is signified. Where I think you are in mistaken about the Reformed view, is in thinking that the presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist is contingent on the faith of the individual-this is not the Reformed view. The Reformed view is that the faith of the individual does not change whether that body and blood is present, but rather it changes whether or not it is received, as those that partake of it in an unworthy manner reject what is given and thus do not receive it. Of course, as you consider that part of the view, you can see that it is a lot more similar to the Lutheran view than you are making it out to be. Obviously, the division between the Lutheran and Reformed view is still in terms of the mode of the presence and in terms of the Lutheran ideas of Manducatio impiorum and Manducatio indignorum, but it is not at all in terms of whether Christ is truly present in the Eucharist (we’re in agreement in that regard).

[@bmstellar]

Good stuff Dr Cooper. Again I could listen to this all day. I appreciate your hard work and providing this info for us lay people.

[@toddvoss52]

Finally, as usual an excellent video. And a model of charity and reasonableness on KZbin.

[@BillWalkerWarren]

Good video. I really enjoy exploring the differences and commonality of our traditions. I do believe brothers and sisters in Christ of the Reformed and Lutheran traditions should take the time to talk even though we don’t agree on some key issues. Honestly it’s boring to talk to folks about something we both agree on. Also it’s a recipe for theological and spiritual stagnation. We both grow in defending our beliefs and perhaps learn something along the way . Great job ! Blessings Your brother is Christ

[@Elcarbonero1003]

Very well said!

[@doxyl4269]

This was extremely helpful as a Reformed person considering Lutheranism. I just finished The Great Divide and found it very helpful (especially how you consistently represent Reformed theology fairly and knowledgeably). I still don't get the assurance thing, though. I don't understand how Calvin's idea of Christ being the 'mirror of our election' is not just as assuring. I looked in The Great Divide and you do have a footnote on this topic in Calvin but I don't think you deal with it and just criticise it for making election a central soteriological category (which I agree with you on, but it didn't really help with my question unless you were making a greater point I don't understand). Excellent video!

[@Adam-ue2ig]

If election/Predestination is true in the Reformed sense then it seems to follow that it is central because the rest follows from it in the "golden chain of Redemption" thus it would be central but one looks back on it as a result of what God has done/produced in ones life. It probably shouldn't be something one looks at on the front end of theology so to speak if it seems to be a stumbling block or a question of trepidation to one that has not become a Believer yet (in other words one should not approach Jesus on the front end with the question am i one of the elect or predestined as the call is to repent and believe and should be preached to all indiscriminately on the front end).

[@It-is-true-1689]

The differences were and still are a matter of Christology.

[@It-is-true-1689]

@Fides Quaerens Intellectum Thanks, brother!

[@rukusfan1387]

It is matter of scripture saying one thing (Greek) and the theology saying something else ... they call it "theological paraphrase." I call it ... well, I did grow up in a farming community ...

[@It-is-true-1689]

@@rukusfan1387 bovine fecal matter? 😃 to what specifically are you referring to brother?

[@adampetersen4795]

The yoke of the Reformed tradition is too heavy to bear. As a person who followed this tradition for years- I can say that you never ever ever ever have assurance of salvation. You are in perpetual doubt- mostly because of their silent tradition of Christ first Moses after in salvation. For the first time in many many years I found rest for my soul in Christ, in the Lutheran church. Praise to God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

[@btodd777]

I have been MSL for years, my children went through school there. I also have reformed leanings and have been influenced by far more reformed pastors than Lutherans. You are the first one I have heard that teaches on these issues I don’t think there are many people in my church who understand any of these differences nor do they care They are Lutheran by tradition or happenstance I have been looking for a new church because none of these issues are taught or discussed at any Lutheran church I have attended. No one knows eschatology or soteriology or any other doctrines of the faith. If you talk to reformed people they know and have an interest in God’s word far more than my Lutheran brothers and sisters. I have a higher view of the sacraments than many American reformed people but the teaching and preaching is so low that I have to listens to sermons from non Lutheran pastors to hear any meat from the sermons. Why is it that that the sermons are so shallow in the Lutheran church. After hearing you that doesn’t mean there aren’t Lutherans who aren’t dealing with the issues. Is it because you think the sacraments do all the work therefore deep teaching of the word is unimportant. In closing you asked why I would want to take the supper if I didn’t Agee with the exact understanding of the church I was attending it is because the lord has commanded that I do so when I meet together with Christ’s family and I have brethren who are Baptist and brethren who are reformed and I have no problem sharing the supper with them and I believe I am told to do so. The Lord said this is my body and blood. He did not say this is my real body and blood. I don’t think we should add to Gods word

[@markhorton3994]

Jesus also did not say this represents my body and blood, or this is my spiritual body and blood. Nor this becomes my body and blood. That is why Lutherans believe in the real presence of bread and Christ's body, wine Christ's blood and refuse to pretend to understand the mystery. It does matter.

[@HolgerSonntag]

The Lutheran preaching I hear is very rich and biblical. It is also centered on Christ the Savior of sinners, and it also is practical for daily Christian life in reading the Scriptures, prayer to God but also love and service to the neighbor. Sorry to hear you're not getting that. True, Christ didn't say this is my real body. But I bet you wouldn't do this when you walk with somebody on a parking lot and get to your car. You'd not say--this is my real car. You'd just say-this is my car. There you go. Let's not overthink this to make excuses for not believing Christ's clear words.

[@btodd777]

Thanks for proving my point@@HolgerSonntag

[@drjustice5086]

Search out a WELS (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod) church in your area. I guarantee if you contact the Pastor of that church he will gladly sit down with you and educate you on why the WELS teaches Luther's teachings on the Bible.

[@JS_Guitar09]

@@drjustice5086 WELS is the best, and also LCMS. LCC for Canadians, too.

[@Adam-ue2ig]

Your comment on Warfield and Hodges on Means of Grace vs immediate Regenerating Work of the Holy Spirit seems correct to me in terms of the Lutheran vs Reformed difference in that respect. It also reaffirms that I still consider myself Reformed!

[@jalapeno.tabasco]

Hodge and Warfield differ from the Reformers themsevles on the sacraments read the Reformers, not the 1800s Princeton guys on Reformed view of sacraments tell me if the Scots Confession is what Hodge and Warfield teach

[@donatist59]

Dr. Cooper, I'm one of those fuzzy boundary Anglicans and I thoroughly enjoy your videos; we think alike on many issues besides social ones. This video was a bit of a struggle... 20 minutes into a discussion of Reformed teaching before Calvinism came up?? As far as I am concerned Calvinism is right up there with Mormonism and Islam on the hierarchy of Great Departures from Authentic Christianity. But by the end of the video I was literally cheering you on as you discussed the meaning of the sacraments in each tradition. Quite a crescendo to end the performance!

[@jalapeno.tabasco]

you do realize Thomas Cranmer was a Calvinist right? >> As far as I am concerned Calvinism is right up there with Mormonism and Islam on the hierarchy of Great Departures from Authentic Christianity.

[@donatist59]

@jalapeno.tabasco Absolutely. And as such quite unbiblical.

[@jalapeno.tabasco]

@@donatist59 so youre part of an unbiblical faith tradition by your own admission? what's unbiblical about Calvinism?

[@donatist59]

​@@jalapeno.tabasco​@jalapeno.tabasco We can easily leave aside the Protestant fantasy about the Biblical church; the Bible is not a coherent viewpoint and certainly not a coherent blueprint for building a denomination. But ironically Calvinism is one of the most obviously anti-Christian doctrines imaginable and therefore entirely unbiblical. Calvinism makes the Atonement a pointless stage play purely for God's entertainment, an act that has zero relevance to human salvation because the saved and the damned are already separated long before the play is put on stage. Joe Christian is already saved from all eternity whether Jesus dies for him or not.

[@donatist59]

@@jalapeno.tabasco Since the Bible doesn't reflect a single viewpoint but instead a variety of them, any church that fixes its beliefs on only one of them is unbiblical as judged by the remainder. This is why every Christian denomination picks and chooses its beliefs from the menu of available options. That being said, it is hard to think of a less Christian teaching than the idea of human response to the divine call being useless.

[@cwstreeper]

This video was very helpful to me. Thank you.

[@bjw8806]

You should do this with Methodists, Wesleyan theology as well.

[@Bible_Loving_Lutheran]

Wesleyan I believe is Arminian

[@ST52655]

@@Bible_Loving_Lutheran It is

[@jeffryan5302]

I prefer to attend a LCMS as a Calvinist in S. California ( my area has a PCA and OPC where both are meeting for worship in public schools ) and I add the word “spirit” during the Lords Supper confession - which I have given my reason to the pastor, etc. How Christ is really present is a mystery, which we both agree !

[@geoffmackey4671]

This was a good video , tackling the Lord,s Supper is a tough one. I'am a bapitized and confirmed Anglican who has being going to a vibrant Baptist Church for the last ten years. I have seen at the grass roots level the differences between the two traditions. The sacraments are not a important part of the Baptist system. I saw a full immersion Baptism today at church. The person was very moved and sincere in her testimony of having it done. The pastor made the point that the Baptism had no bearing on her salvation.. The Lutheran view is different as the video states. I like the Lutheran view that the sacraments are an objective means of Grace. The Lord's Supper is done one a month without any liturgy to it. The Anglicans do it every week with liturgy. I enjoy your videos and Rev. Bryan Wolfmeuller's as well. I have a couple of your books and his as too. I 'am enjoying learning about the Lutheran theology and I find it more comforting than the other Protestant traditions. Good effort on explaining of the Lord's Supper. I felt you were a little frustrated in trying to do it. It is the one Doctrine that would keep me from being a Lutheran. I have read different Lutheran sources on it and it does not click for me . I have come the conclusion that it has to be spiritually discerned to get it and rational thought won't help me on this one. Keep true to your Closed Communion stance. Your case for it was very well done and I would not partake in Communion if I was attending a Lutheran service.

[@pcarr1382]

Yeah Anglicans have always been a huge tent even before the Oxford movement. Quite a few high churchers called the table the altar including people like Archbishop William Laud. These people generally had a much more sacrament focused theology and practice than everyone else and were closer to Lutherans in areas like predestination too. Some in the high church party even adhered to an alternate (39 articles compliant) Eucharistic theory called “Viritualism” which focuses on the elements and an objective efficacy of the Eucharist. For them the difference between Lutherans and Reformed really is the mode of presence.

[@johngeverett]

As usual, your presentation is thorough and fair. @49:13 the essential difference. The objective identification of the bread and wine with the sacrificed body and blood of Christ is why I am an Anglican Catholic.

[@October31st1517]

Excellent presentation. Not to mention i love the mantastic beard. 😂 God bless.

[@matthewburger5565]

Dr. Cooper, I appreciate your videos. Its nice to get a scholarly confessional Lutheran perspective. I couldn't help myself on wading into your mention of Anglicans. As one, let me first issue a general caution to beware those who add party or tradition modifiers to the term 'Anglican' (i.e. Reform Anglican, Evangelical Anglican, Anglo-Catholic, etc...). They are according to their labels. But they also all depart from the faith outlined in our Anglican formularies (i.e. 39 Articles, Prayer Book, Catechism, Ordinal, Homilies) in various ways and the fairly strong consensus among Anglican Divines prior to the second half of the 18th century and the challenges of the Enlightenment. As to the question of Altars. Bishop Edward Harold Browne, who has one of the best (i.e. orthodox) commentaries on the 39 Articles has a great footnote on the topic. He admits that the term is used in the early church and is theologically appropriate, but that its use was dropped by the English Reformers because of its association with the sacrifice of the mass, which I've read was perhaps more deeply ingrained in the piety of pre-Reformation England than anywhere else in Europe. Thus, official in the Prayer Book it is called a Holy Table. However, based on the Prayer's Book ornaments rubric, which essentially allows any church ornament save shrines to saints, you could technically still call the Holy Table an Altar and many Anglican Divines of that era do use the term, although definitely sparingly. John Jewel, for instance, speaks of the 'Sacrament of the Altar'. As you move away from the 16th century, however, and any real danger of widespread believe in the sacrifice of the mass, the use of the term Altar becomes widespread. Bishop Anthony Sparrow writing a commentary on the Prayer Book in 1655 will say at times 'Holy Table or Altar", but quite often just uses the term 'Altar'. By Browne era (c. 1840), the use of the term was ubiquitous and thus he can commend it for its patristic and strong theological underpinnings. By the way, I found Henry Eyster Jacobs book, The Lutheran Movement in England an invaluable source on understanding orthodox Anglicanism. I've been very interested in the amount of influence Lutheranism had upon development Anglicanism, several early 17th century Anglican Divines, for instance, are familiar with and cite Chemnitz and numerous Anglican Reformers tout the distinction between Law and Gospel, even defining the distinction as 'True Religion'. I think its safe to say that the basic shape of our Anglican formularies and thus Anglican theology is Lutheran, although there are definitely also important differences.

[@wesmorgan7729]

I would love to see Cooper or someone else do a video on the historo-theological relationship between Lutheranism and Anglicanism as I see Lutherans as our closest cousin.

[@Thatoneguy-pu8ty]

Very interesting

[@Jonathan-si2nd]

In other words, the Sacraments are insubstantial for the Reformed since nothing happens via them that can't and doesn't happen otherwise within one's soul if possessing saving faith. That's certainly way different than the early Church's understanding.

[@hexahexametermeter]

44:40 I think you are wrong on Calvin here. Read his chapter on baptism. Assurance of salvation is clearly shown to be sought there.

[@hexahexametermeter]

Calvin even uses the phrase "As by an instrument" just as the 39 articles repeats on its section on baptism.

[@hexahexametermeter]

And yes I agree with you the epistemological cognitive dissonance comes from the double predestination doctrine. Calvin as with Augustine provide no assurance of salvation in that topic, because you could just be taking the sacraments and "being good" all the while not being elect.

[@timothysuddath3852]

As a Lutheran, my largest disagreement is and has been closed communion. Any man that comes to the table God has prepared for us, with a true repentant and contrite heart, should not be denied the grace in the body and blood. Simply use an elder to speak to that person, privately when you see the new face to explain to them what they're doing. Luther himself encouraged going to the table, as often as that sinner needed. Christ offered His body for an atonement. Past, present and future. In the sacrament of the eucharist no one should be denied. We cannot see into a man's heart. Only God can do that. We are not offering the bread and wine. We haven't prepared a table. God has.

[@Mygoalwogel]

We cannot see into a man's heart, but we can know his confession of faith, and a Pastor should know the lives of his flock. 1 Cor 5:11 We are not to eat even secular food with christians who do not accept correction. Guests, whose lives are unknown to the pastor, should be catechised (i.e. accept correction) first. "Revilers" who cannot help but verbally object to the Pastor's catechetical teaching on the Sacrament are rightly excluded.

[@timothysuddath3852]

@@Mygoalwogel very true, and that's why I included a conversation being had with a newcomer. I stress again. We offer nothing. God had prepared that table. When I first attended a Lutheran church, the pastor immediately recognized a new face, but I had also went to him and asked if I would be allowed to partake. We talked, we were on the same page, and I was allowed at the altar. And this being a Missouri Synod Church

[@Mygoalwogel]

@@timothysuddath3852 And that's as it should be. Maybe that makes me a liberal. Your initial comment made it seem to me that you believed in no Biblical rules governing whom the faithful Pastor may invite to partake. Glad that is not your intention.

[@timothysuddath3852]

@@Mygoalwogel It can be difficult on the pastor. So many have been baptized, been confirmed and are technically in communion with the church. But, they show up 2-3 times a year. Good Friday, maybe. Easter and Christmas. Can be difficult to determine, or they may attend a different church with a friend, within the same communion. I'm not in total disagreement. But in that matter I'd personally err on the side of an open table. God knows who is repentant and who is not. He sees what we do not. Take to your salvation, or take to your damnation. It's a serious matter. We simply cannot truly know whom should partake and who should not. The problem will only get worse as fewer and fewer attend regularly. That is an entirely different discussion though on who is to blame for that.

[@Mygoalwogel]

@@timothysuddath3852 It is hard on the Pastor. "Take to your salvation, or take to your damnation." is why a good bit of catechesis before partaking is a good idea.

[@joshhorne]

I’m a Presbyterian who’s exploring the Lutheran church. I’m confused by the title of your video. Are Lutherans not reformed? I understand Lutherans are not Calvinists. But why eschew the term Reformed? Thanks for helping clear this up for me (and I apologize in advance if this is a dumb question haha).

[@bmide1110]

Lutherans are reformed in the sense that they are a part and heir of the Protestant Reformation, but in theological discussion ‘reformed’ is generally used to describe the churches that are heirs to the Zwingli/Calvin stream of theology, as opposed to Lutheranism or the Anabaptists.

[@drjustice5086]

Find a WELS (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran) church in your area. Our seminaries demand our graduates are competent in learning the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic languages. Our Pastor's really are scholars. In most seminaries today original languages, Greek, Hebrew, etc... are an ELECTIVE. Unbelievable, really, that's how far Christendom has fallen in today's day and age.

[@Rich-vp4ih]

Since Christ shed His blood for all, why not Communion for all?

[@turnertruckandtractor]

Just ordered A Summary of the Christen Faith and Walther's Law and Gospel.

[@toddvoss52]

The Reformed tradition on the Sacraments as summed up by Warfield is an extreme version of the "occasionalism" of Scotus, the Franciscans in general and also the nominalists. Arguably the Lutheran position is closer to a more moderate "occasionalism" which nevertheless departs from the eventual Thomistic view of how the Sacraments effect what they signify.

[@nealstafford9063]

This is a really good podcast.

[@surikat-q9i]

I was one that wanted to find a common ground among the reformed (I grew as one) and the lutheran (I 'm converted to) but the more I study and understand the more I realize that this common ground is a phantasy. There is nothing in common. The lack of belief in the sacraments as real and effectual means of grace, i.e. the blood and body and deity of Jesus for you, is a huge difference. Reformed have a faith on their faith. We have a faith on what Jesus does for us from the outside of us. Reformed speak all the time about ''I feel this, I think so, I have something in my heart'' etc The Lutherans say ''I 'm baptized'', they never point on their ''faith'' (magnitude and quality of their faith) and their deeds (as something that help you to prove your faith). In reformed tradition everything is subjective. In lutherans everything is objective. Reformed look their heart and their feelings and their works and they never are secure for anything. Lutherans look always on the cross, never inside them, because they know that inside them there is only sin. Reformed are quasi-gnostics and they create from time to time new things in their theology. Lutherans are the original, the ancient, the unaltered catholic, orthodox, apostolic church. Lutherans have more in common with RC and EO than with the thousand of modern, americanized protestant denominations and new christian religions. Let's notice also that reformed is not what Calvin wrote. Calling them ''calvinist'' is out of any logic and right.

[@SerenityNow22]

I’m Reformed and you’re completely misrepresenting our side. We speak of feelings? Really? I don’t know any reformed brethren who speak like that. Christ & him crucified. Dive into the word. Exegesis. Context. I’ve never had more love for God & what he’s done for me than when I found Reformed Theology. I came from an Arminian home & churches. Very anemic, very feelings based. I’m just learning about the differences between us & Lutherans and you seem to have held on to a lot of Roman Catholic beliefs. I’m not being persuaded…

[@jalapeno.tabasco]

you're mixing Owenians with historic Calvinists....

[@neilstauffer3636]

I don’t know of any in the reformed camp who would point to the means of grace as a basis for their assurance. I think they would point to the finished work of Christ and one’s repentance and trust in Christ - from the heart - for the forgiveness of sins (i.e. faith) as the basis for that assurance. I think a predominant concern among the reformed in terms of the sacraments is false assurance. The idea that, when pressed as to how one knows he is saved, a baptized person may simply respond, “I’ve been baptized” and may actually have no understanding of the gospel whatsoever (i.e. that we are sinners deserving of eternal death and can only be saved by the unmerited grace of Christ who atoned for our sins on the cross as our substitute so that we don’t receive the punishment for our sins but receive the gift of eternal life). The concern is that the person in this hypothetical will continue throughout life relying only on the fact he has been baptized without ever having repented and personally placed his faith/trust in Christ as savior for the forgiveness of his sins. Such a person, in the reformed view, would be entirely deceived and would believe he is saved while actually having no heart/mind understanding of the gospel whatsoever. This is the false assurance predicament that the reformed believe is possible and even probable in a person’s life when that person is told only, “you were baptized” in response to his question, “how do I know I’m saved?”

[@hexahexametermeter]

I agree with your assessment on election and double predestination. But I don't think Calvin is picking up anything on that that you don't already find in Augustine.

[@twentyfourthrones]

Very great and informative video!

[@broadaccent]

Missouri and Wisconsin synod don’t share the table, do they? Despite being confessional Lutherans. (?)

[@HalfElfCleric]

They do not.

[@HalfElfCleric]

@Mikael Nyman This is not an unfair statement. I was at a lunch event at our church and made a joke about predestination. One of the other members said "But we're Lutherans, so we don't believe in predestination." The pastor had to then affirm that, yes, we do teach predestination. This is just one example.

[@angelbonilla4243]

I wonder what Jesus thinks about that.

[@JRRodriguez-nu7po]

Jesus spoke about straining gnats while swallowing camels. Most that call themselves Lutheran and Presbyterian deny the Bible is actually history. When I was an agnostic, I came to deny macroevolution and believed in a young earth because of science long before reading or believing the Bible. If you're not willing to believe the actual history of Genesis, but like Augustine, replace the 6 day creation with sophistry; you are swallowing a camel. If the men put a head cover OR women don't wear one at Church, a command rooted in Genesis 1-3; again you swallow a camel. You KNOW women uncovered their heads in the 60s as an open sign of rebellion; ie feminism. So while this discussion is helpful and well done for an academic understanding, the camel continues ignored.

[@drjustice5086]

The Missouri, like the ELCA have gone so far left they're unrecognizable as Christian churches. An older couple visited our church (WELS) and told us their experience at their ELCA church. It was Easter service, the older man made a comment to a woman in front of him that Easter was SO exciting as Christ's resurrection confirmed He is/was the Savior of the world. The young woman, with a few children said "we (her husband also) really don't believe that stuff about 'miracles' in the Bible". The older man was stunned speechless. The young woman with children happened to be the Pastor's wife of that church. True story, happened last year.

[@HalfElfCleric]

However, you can't always objectively point to baptism as evidence of salvation *in the end*. I think that is the problem. I can say I am saved now but baptized people can fall away or be deceived. I think the truth lies somewhere between the two systems.

[@surikat-q9i]

Not at all. Not at all. Saying ''I'm Baptized'' is not a magical formula. It is what someone says when he/she knows the magnitude of his/her sin and when the Law makes him/her feel desperate and condemned, then, the gospel comes, what Christ and not us have done, and then it' s the time you point to yourself (faith, deeds) or you point to Jesus (I' m baptized). Reformed tradition is not what Calvin wrote, is not what the Reformation said, is not sound teaching. It is the opposite of all these.

[@poordoubloon10]

James Helms baptized people can fall away to be sure because regenerate, saved people can fall away (make shipwreck of their faith) - baptism saves/regenerates and any who receive it are both of those things; but grace is resistible. What’s the issue here?

[@HalfElfCleric]

@@poordoubloon10 The issue is that, when it comes to assurance, a thoughtful Reformed person doesn't as the question "Am I saved right now?" The ask "Will I remain in the faith till I die?" The question has two parts. Lutherans are great at answering "Have I BEEN saved?" They point to baptism and say yes. However, they fail to answer "Will I BE saved?" For the Reformed it is vice versa. Sure, each group might have their special theological language to address each issue, but having spent time in both churches that is the way they each manifest their view of assurance. Peter said to repent AND be baptized. Paul said to believe AND be baptized. We are saved through baptism, but if we don't continue in sanctification then how do we know we are still saved/being saved? How do we know we aren't stumbling into the ditch of antinomianism? How do we know when to go see our spiritual doctors? You can't just say "I'm baptized" and call it a day.

[@HalfElfCleric]

@@surikat-q9i The problem is that this explanation lacks the very thing Reformed groups are seeking. yes, I have been baptized, but that is only half of my assurance. I have BEEN saved, but what are the indicators that I am still BEING or will BE saved? How do I know I have not strayed off the path and have been fooled into apostacy without knowing it? If someone looks at their life and sees that they are not continuing to grow in sanctification they ought to be terrified back to the path. This is not a bad thing. Although I sit in a Lutheran church today, it was the "legalistic" preaching of Paul Washer that showed me the error of my practical antinomianism and pushed me back to a more disciplined lifestyle. I would be living in apostacy if not for the harsh preaching of the Reformed. What I needed was a stern lecture, not "Remember your baptism."

[@hexahexametermeter]

You did not summarize him accurately: "Confessional Lutheranism is conveyed throught the sacraments, OTHERWISE NOT." He does not deny that grace is communicated through the sacraments. He denies that it may not be communicated otherwise! So you would say then the grace of God is not bestowed outside the sacraments?

[@TheDroc1990]

My jaw almost dropped when I heard Warfield. Pure brilliance.

[@classicalmatt8206]

I'm trying to better understand. Around the 53 minute mark. Faith receives the benefits from the sacraments. Would that mean that assurance of salvation would sound like "I know I'm saved because I received the sacraments and haven't rejected Christ?" I'm not trying to misrepresent, just trying to better understand. Thank you.

[@Destroyer83]

I've been in dialogue with some Lutherans, and we were discussing what parts of the body of Christ we each were. They said they were the brains, but being reformed, that didn't sit right with me. This is just me, but Lutherans are, in my opinion, very earthy in the absolute best sense of the word. (Not worldly) I would maintain that the Calvinists are probably the brains, but the Lutherans are the guts. Both are absolutely necessary. Perhaps one could say that the Lutherans may best keep the Calvinists feet on the ground, and the Calvinists keep the Lutherans eyes looking up to heaven.

[@stuffipost137]

As a Presbyterian I have to take a year or two break before listening to him again. He mangled the Reformed understanding of baptism. Much like the Arminians who place all their focus on the person and ignore the work of God, so also does Jordan fail in his understanding here. God DOES communicate grace in the sacrament of baptism... BUT that doesn't mean one is saved then. Like the Westminster points out, Jesus said that one is born of the Spirit, and like the wind blowing, you don't know where it comes from or goes. So, you don't know when the Spirit will regenerate, BUT He will usually work through the means of grace. To worry about "Am I elect?" is identical to "Am I saved?" So, how do you know? First, if you're actually concerned about if you're saved (or "elect"), that's a good start. Next, compare yourself with 1 John. To simply park on baptism can - and does - offer a false hope. And what? As if the people John was writing to weren't baptized? Obviously, one can be baptized and not saved. But, in the end, it's perseverance... and that can only come by the grace of God.

[@chaddonal4331]

42:55 - 46:00. You may have, in 3 minutes revealed why neither Lutherans nor Calvinists have baptism correct. In Lutheranism you have baptism potentially guaranteeing salvation apart from faith. You assert it is universally applied due to universal atonement (so far so good), but because it is an objective work of grace you now offer a salvation apart from necessary faith! This puts Luther in quite the conundrum where one may be saved by baptism but has not been justified by faith! This seems to be an impossible position. Meanwhile, among the Calvinistic Reformed you have an opposite untenable problem. Due to their view of Limited Atonement, there is the possibility of someone who wants to be saved, wants to be baptized, and yet cannot be - because they were not chosen as among the elect. So we have the possible category of the believing reprobate, the baptized non-elect, the desiring and rejected. Of the two, the possibility for the Lutheran problem seems common; the possibility for the Reformed problem seems more remote. Both beg for an intermediate solution that combines: the availability of God’s grace to all, and the necessity of personal faith to activate the grace of God in baptism.

[@hexahexametermeter]

I wish people would drop the term "spiritual presence". If you read the institutes Calvin clearly is talking about a physical presence communicated by the Holy Spirit. Not anything like "Jesus here in spirit" which "spiritual presence" communicates.

[@Clubbeaux]

Very helpful, thanks, but can you explain how an "efficacious work of the Spirit" can be resistible? It's either efficacious or it's not, right?

[@Adam-ue2ig]

That seems right. It would seem to be s distinction without a difference ultimately.

[@Solideogloria00]

The Spirit can be resisted. I don’t know if this analogy helps, but if you are given a blood transfusion, the the blood is effective if it goes in your body give you life. If you reject the transfusion by pulling the tubes resisting the work of the “doctor” and die, it doesn’t mean that the blood itself had no was ineffective, you just rejected the life given to you as perished. I think this helps me see the work of the Spirit. Rejecting the Spirit doesn’t mean He is ineffective.

[@Virikel]

I'm one of the average of 20% of Confessional Lutherans who used to be Reformed. Raised and catechized very well in that direction, and I'm thankful. But I have to confess that I believe that the Reformed camp was liberal Christianity of its day. It makes sense that these views would suddenly appear when they never had in all of Christianity. The "enlightenment", the "age of reason", was the liberal movement being birthed, and "liberal Christianity" always holds fast to such things. Liberal Christianity today adopts the liberal movement of the sexual revolution, for example. At the birth of the second stream of the Reformation (the Reformed), it makes sense that they would adopt what are historically Gnostic views -- that is, denying Baptismal Regeneration and Real Presence in the Lord's Supper. Only Gnostics had ever denied those before that time, and the Reformed are (conveniently) not shown that part of Christian history. And that's sad, because they talk a lot about hermeneutics and exegesis, and yet they eisegete the Church Fathers as much as their opponents eisegete the Scriptures. But I digress. Even though I may be going out on a limb -- as well as treating my own former traditions the same as former Pentecostals, Old Catholics, and many others do upon coming into oldschool Christianity -- I believe Reformed Christianity is better than much more liberal Christianity in our day, but it was liberal Christianity in its day, and while it's better than other branches, its differences from historic Christianity is why so many such people are becoming, for example, Lutheran. We are finding rest we didn't believe was possible until our hearts stopped.

[@carlpeterson8182]

As a reformed Christian, I have always heard from other Reformed people that the difference in presence in the LS has to do with how each tradition views the Jesus Christ. Is the human nature of Christ at the right hand of the Father or all around the world and is the human nature finite or pretty much infinite? BTW I believe in spiritual presence but I am much more on the side of Luteranism instead of a non presence view. So spiritual presence but on the side of a Lutheran or Eastern Orthodox view of the presence.

[@georgemay8170]

The Righteousness of Christ alone is imputed to our account when the Holy Spirit gives us the gift of faith and implies God doing the electing from eternity.

[@jamesbarksdale978]

I'm Lutheran. Although I hold slightly different views on Justification, Faith and works, I resonate with Lutheranism's doctrines of Baptism and Holy Communion. They bring me comfort and hope.

[@Tiredhike]

This is gold. Thanks Coop!

[@timharris2291]

Dr. Cooper, re Close Communion, I think your explanation ("people that don't agree with our view shouldn't even want to participate") is not correct, because (1) some members of Reformed churches probably do agree with the Lutheran view, and this could be ascertained, say, with a brief interview by the elders prior to the service; (2) Lutherans from other denominations, who presumptively hold the same view, are also excluded, at least in some Lutheran denominations. Instead, I think the real reason has to do with a view of the church and her authority, and the meaning of membership. EO and RC are also Close Communion, for this reason. The Reformed used to be also, in effect, and some still are. It is only post-baby-boomer as far as I can tell that popular Reformed denominations became promiscuous in admittance to the Lord's Table.

[@slamdancer1720]

Perhaps key distinction rather than key doctrine would work.

[@carlpeterson8182]

Could it be what did Calvin and Luther had to fight against? What were the challenges and heretical views that they taught against? I always think that many make too much to do on justification because that was the big fight during the early reformation. It might be easier to see that the Orthodox have never really fought against Pelangianism because that was more of a Western heresy and fight.

[@joeparks2018]

As someone newly coming out of a Reformed tradition, I have to ask: If merging Lutheran and Reformed seminaries didn't work for Lutherans because all of the graduates came out Reformed, doesn't that imply that the Reformed had the better arguments? And also imply that Reformed theology is the correct one (at least when compared to Lutheran theology)?

[@Wolttizm]

That would be a no.

[@slamdancer1720]

That would be a yes, at least on the surface.

[@joelleonard8869]

I would turn that around and ask you the same about revivalism which overtook most reformed churches in the USA. Does the "success" of revivalism in the USA over confessional reformed doctrine make it correct, especially when you consider that it led to heretical "progressive Christianity" and "Word of Faith" heresy? Just because a tradition is large and "successful" does not make it biblical. It is our sinful nature that always wants to reject the truth of scripture.

[@vdma20]

I think your last point is really important. This is also why I would never want to attend the eucharist in a Roman mass. Maybe Lutherans and Roman Catholics could be able to overcome the differences about Transsubstantiation, but I see no way how to find common ground about the sacrifice of the mass.

[@toddvoss52]

I honestly don't think that is true. I think we could overcome both. See my comment on Dr Cooper's video on Eucharistic Sacrifice. I don't see why Luther had to abandon the Sacrifice of the Liturgy.

[@charleshappold4637]

The Mass at this Lutheran parish may help explain the Lutheran view of the eucharistic sacrifice. Starting at 49:48 kzbin.info/www/bejne/oJOQaYRomLx3hMk&ab_channel=TrinityLutheranChurchandSchool

[@mitchmclean5435]

Anglicans are a via media between Lutheran and Reformed, not between Rome and Protestantism.

[@Hospody-Pomylui]

By contrast SOME Presbyterians let children take communion (cough cough Doug Wilson) believing in the objectivity of the covenant and that the Lord's Supper is New Covenant sign to the beliver.

[@margaretschwartzentruber3154]

convoluted word gymnastics

[@chancha807]

I understand the there are major differences in theology of the two. My question is either view truly heretical ? Don't we all agree on the core truths of Christianity ? Is a Lutheran going to hell for having a different theology than the Reformed and vice versa ?

[@caedmonnoeske3931]

Of course not! No one's claiming that.

[@chancha807]

@@caedmonnoeske3931 Thank you.

[@hexahexametermeter]

1:00:14 You lost me here. In my opinion you have crossed into Romanism. You might as well set up a monstrance and worship it. The 39 Articles do not even allow this. "The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped." You claim to follow scripture, but you have no command from Christ that tells you to "Take, worship, this is my body." Christ ONLY says EAT.

[@hexahexametermeter]

The Black Rubric also clarifies why kneeling is done at the altar: "Whereas it is ordained in this Office for the Administration of the Lord's Supper, that the Communicants should receive the same kneeling; (which order is well meant, for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers, and for the avoiding of such profanation and disorder in the holy Communion, as might otherwise ensue;) yet, lest the same kneeling should by any persons, either out of ignorance and infirmity, or out of malice and obstinacy, be misconstrued and depraved: It is hereby declared, That thereby no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received, or unto any Corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood."

[@hexahexametermeter]

To have a Reformed liturgical church would be amazing. Why are you holding back the floodgates of a united Church??? ha What do you have to give up? Except perhapse claiming you can personally forgive sins in confession? When it comes down to the mode of the presence in the Lord's Supper, I dont think that is an answer you can ever arrive at. I think this is the pearl Lutherans clutch, even while there is no scriptural passage that speaks at all of the mode. Once you acknowledge the Holy Spirit's role in salvation, the unity of the Holy Spirt, the mode becomes superfluous.

[@TheOrlandoChristian]

I’m Catholic but am more Lutheran in theology. I worship in the Catholic Church though.

[@theupsidedownminddickens7242]

I can tell you what the key similarity is: Pride.

[@justintillett]

Where is the evidence for altars in the NT? Jesus is the altar, himself. This may be the primary difference in Lutheran and Reformed theology.

[@henrka]

Look at the irony, Lutherans have a high view of baptism but disallow baptized believers from other Christian denominations to take a communion. So much for baptism, it means rubbish for Lutherans if they deny communion to other baptized believers, communion is about sharing the Lord’s table with other believers, not a theology test before taking breaking bread with other believers. Unbelievable, luckily in Canada where I live not a single confessional Lutheran church enforces closed communion, and I would think that in he US is probably the same with few exceptions. Same with Roman Catholics, I have yet found a Roman Catholic Church that would deny me communion when I tel them I am an evangelical, every time I have been told that as long as I am baptized I can fully participate in their mass service and receive communion. Thanks be to God that churches do not enforce what the dumb leaders instituted, I.e. closed communion.

[@laiquende9971]

As one of your Reformed listeners I thought this was excellent. It's interesting that it's something I've spoken to others about when discussing baptismal efficacy. I guess I'm one the Reformed who would place more emphasis on the sacraments though I hope that will become more prevalent. I don't have high expectations as a large portion of the current Presbyterian landscape was very recently brought over from the Baptist tradition. Sadly they most likely heard, "We're not saying that baptism saves the baby" as a way to make the transition more palatable. Anyways, I'm sure you're also aware of the Reformed's understanding of the unity of the Trinity in salvation and how this relates to the issue. Like you said there's that parallel between Christ's atoning work being specifically for the Father's elect and the Spirit's application of those benefits being in unity with the Father's election and the Son's atonement. Just as Christ the high priest offers a priestly prayer not for the world but for those the Father has given Him, so He offers a priestly sacrifice for that same group (though the general invitation is universal along with the sufficiency but this speaks to Christ's priestly intentions). The same would be said of the Spirit's work. I honestly can't see the Spirit applying the benefits of Christ's sacrifice in baptism to those whom the Father hasn't elected to receive them. This is why the WCF says the efficacy of baptism is for "those whom the grace belongeth unto" -- the elect. That's not to say that I'm accusing you of affirming the disunity between the persons of the Godhead, but I thought I would add a little more to the discussion. Sadly if Christendom were a high school cafeteria, the Reformed have left the table where the Lutherans, Anglicans, Rome, and the East are sitting and have gone to sit and talk with the Baptists. I'm not sure if that's been a good influence on us though it's helped them I guess.

[@HalfElfCleric]

Hmmm, you make an interesting point that is worth noting.

[@retrograd332]

I'm sure this won't be a popular take, but for the common folk in churches, faith is a more simple affair. People put their faith in Christ and cling to him as their savior. This is true of both the reformed and Lutheran. I like also to go deep into thelogy but most people you talk to don't have a clue about most topics you bring up. This is not to say they are not Christians, again more simple faith. I am reformed and my daughter goes to a confessional Lutheran school because it really is the best option versus a broadly evangelical school. We agree on 95% of thelogy (in my estimation). I consider them my friends and brothers in Christ. The only point of difference that has ever come up is once I said I don't hold to baptismal regeneration to which the WELS Lutheran said, well you know the thief on the cross, I though that was ironic. Anyway, I'm at a point where if someone is truly holding to Christ in faith alone, I don't see the need to try and convert them. And whether it's the physical or spiritual presence in the supper, it ultimately doesn't matter what we people believe about it, because it's only what God knows about it that matters. And that is what will actually occur in the administration. I can admit that I don't have all the answers nor do I think I need them. I also know I have errors. I don't seek to have them, but I am a human so I will. Anyway, the whole point is, there is no need to be so hostile towards each other. I love you all, have a great night.

[@EK-iz2jk]

You're basically talking about "felicitous inconsistency"- happily, people cling simply to salvation by faith through Christ even though it's inconsistent with their theology. Whether you're Lutheran, Catholic, Methodist, Catholic, etc, it's faith that saves. The issue is that any and all false doctrine can and often does work to uncut that simple faith and simple assurance. I've met so many Calvinists that question their salvation- that doubt whether Christ really died for them. That can kill faith (trust) if it gets too strong. In my Methodist upbringing, I sometimes heard that Christ died for me, so the faith was there...but I was taught the Bible wasn't trustworthy, that it has errors. That hurt my faith. Can Methodists be saved even with bad theology? Of course- by having a simple faith that ignores errors. But those are still errors and they can rob one of faith. I don't try to "convert" the Reformed or others in Christian denomination- they're already Christian. However, even ignoring that I think false doctrine (no matter how small) is a sin, false doctrine is dangerous and destructive to people. I want people to be Lutheran instead of Calvinist because then the worry about whether Christ really died for them is gone and they can be certain they're receiving His Body and Blood for the forgiveness of sin. I want people to be Lutheran instead of Methodist so they hear that the Bible is trustworthy and can depend on it. I want Baptists to be Lutheran so that they see their baptism as God's work, instead of an act of obedience, because God's work is much more sure and certain than our own.

[@oracleoftroy]

@@EK-iz2jk I think "Calvinists" who worry whether they are saved don't understand Reformed Theology enough. Any tradition that places our salvation in the hands of man has room for genuine doubt as they have to trust fallen sinners for the ultimate hope of their salvation. Reformed Theology places all of salvation in God, so one who understands that their is nothing in them that deserves salvation yet God has deemed to save them anyway, they have full assurance that God will keep his promises and nothing in heaven or earth, including themselves, can separate them from God's love. For those who do understand Reformed theology and insist that one can't have assurance, that is saying God is untrustworthy and salvation has to be up to man to really have assurance. Lutherans can be inconsistent or unclear here, but they generally agree with the Reformed here and mostly quibble about the wording and a few particular details.

[@BrotherMikeBCSF]

Greetings Brother. I have recently embraced the Reformed View of Election / Predestination. Blessings.

[@Mygoalwogel]

Sorry to hear that you have recently rejected the Biblical View of Election / Predestination. *Ezekiel 18:23; 33:11* God wants all wicked to repent and live. *Luke 7:30* God's βουλή (plan/purpose/resolve/counsel) for the Pharisees was to accept them. But they rejected this βουλή of God for themselves, by refusing John's baptism. *1 Timothy 4:10; 1 John 2:2* He is especially the Savior of believers. He remains the Savior of all people. This makes the labor of evangelism and the reproach of scoffers bearable. He is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the church AND the world. *John 1:29; 3:16* The lamb of God takes away the sins of the world. God loved the world. *Luke 8:13* Jesus asserts that some really do *joyfully believe* the gospel for a while, and actually *fall away* through trials and temptations. *Luke 11:13* Jesus is emphatic that the Father gives the Holy Spirit to anyone who asks. *Romans 11:32* Who does God have mercy for? Everyone whom he consigned to disobedience! *1 Corinthians 8:11* It is possible to destroy the saving faith of a brother for whom Christ died. *Eph **4:30* The Ephesians were sealed for the day of redemption, yet Paul warned them that the possibility of grieving the Holy Spirit was a reality. *2 Peter 2:1* Christ bought even the heretics who deny Him and destroy themselves. *1 Tim 2:1-6* Christ died for all people and wants all people to be saved. Therefore, Paul commands us to *intercede* even for godless kings and rulers. *Hebrews 3:1-12* Even "holy brothers and sisters" can "turn away from the living God" with an "evil, unbelieving heart." *Hebrews 2:1, 12:25* The author and the audience could reject God's warning and not escape. *Hebrews 6:4-6* It is possible for one to be enlightened, taste the heavenly gift, have the Holy Spirit, tasted the goodness of the word of God, and then fall away. *Ephesians 3:3-6; Isaiah 45:19* As God has revealed his secret will in scripture, it is always to extend greater mercy. *1 John 2:2* Christ is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, not only for the church.

[@Kerosenetrewthe]

Just ordered Krauth's book to study deeper. Thank you, Jordan.

[@anselman3156]

How does it give glory to God to misrepresent Him as having determined before creation to deny to particular individuals any opportunity to avoid damnation and everlasting exclusion from God's presence?

[@retrograd332]

It says in the Bible he chose

[@Dilley_G45]

@@retrograd332 no that is what Calvinists say...

[@sandygrogg1203]

@@retrograd332 it also says He died for all...

[@Rich-vp4ih]

Can't the Word be considered a Sacrament?

[@hexahexametermeter]

This confirms that I can never be a Lutheran.

[@nilsalmgren4492]

The question is if one religious group knows God while the other does not. Division of God's followers is evil according to the Bible, a sign of the flesh.

[@j.l.glover4037]

Can someone uphold T.U.L.I.P. And be a conservative Lutheran?

[@vitaignis5594]

Don't know how anyone can uphold TULIP and be truly Orthodox

[@henrka]

Total mischaracterization of Calvinism. “How do you know Christ died for you ? Because you are one of the elect. “. That is certainly not Calvinism but stupidity and a caricature of Calvinism. Calvin in his Institutes condemned anybody that would try to check his faith by asking themselves if they are one of the elect. On the contrary, in Calvinism you know you are one of the elect because you have faith ! You must have faith first, and in that faith you are found to be one of the elect. Calvinists know they are elect because they have faith, no sane calvinist questions whether Christ died for him by asking himself if he is elect, but knows that Christ died for him through faith. And no calvinists can ever doubt that Christ died for him because this revealed through the Holy Spirit (Romans 8: the spirit testified with our spirit that we are children of God).

[@henrka]

Romans 8:16 is the key verse “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:”. And frankly this is the only way anybody can have assurance of salvation, not just calvinists but lutherans and any other Christian can have assurance of salvation solely by the Holy Spirit. Baptism cannot give you assurance, the Lord’s Supper cannot give you assurance and the Word cannot give anybody assurance, except the Spirit provides that assurance. This is something Luther and Calvin agreed with, but modern lutherans reject. The idea that anybody can be assured of his / her salvation through baptism is utter nonsense, with that said the Holy Spirit assures the elect of their salvation in Christ through the word and through baptism and the Lord’s Supper. But the source of this assurance is always the Holy Spirit and we should not rob the Spirit and we should always credit the spirit with the assurance he provides to the elect alone.

[@henrka]

And trust me I did not have assurance of salvation for many years, and it is not because I was resisting God’s Grace but because God had not given me Grace. Grace is irresistible, Philippians 2:13 clearly teaches that it is God who works in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Grace by definition performs what it delivers, otherwise it is not Grace, if Grace was resistible we would all resist it, all.

[@pepehaydn7039]

One of them is a heresy, or both are.

[@gianniryansmith614]

Great video!

[@rukusfan1387]

Read it in the Greek without the "theological paraphrasing" and you get original Christianity. Gimme some moe

[@wesmorgan7729]

I'm sure there were (and are) very Reformed Anglicans who call it a "table" or "holy table," but I've never been to or heard of an Anglican church refer to it as something other than an altar.

[@richardsaintjohn8391]

🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺

[@Edward-ng8oo]

Luther said that one should believe everything plainly and simply or believe nothing as the Holy Spirit doesn't allow one to believe one doctrine truly and another falsely (after instruction in the truth). Many Lutherans however seem to have the view that it doesn't really have any eternal consequences if one's beliefs differ somewhat from what the Bible teaches. The question that arises is would Luther have regarded the teaching of the Formula of Concord on predestination and grace to be such a deviation from the teaching of Scripture as to render those who believe this to have left the true faith? Considering that Luther strongly argued in The Bondage of the Will that the Scriptures teach that all things are predestined to happen, and that this was denied by the Formula of Concord, I think Luther would have held that confessional Lutherans have deviated from the truth to such an extent that they’ve lost the Holy Spirit. Luther opposed Erasmus's defence of free will by arguing that the Scriptures teach all things are necessitated to happen by God, and that people are predestined to be saved and damned. The FOC on the other hand only accepted that people are predestined to be saved, and denied that some are predestined to be damned. It denied that God necessitates everything that happens, and teaches in effect that people sin and are damned because of their own free will. So the position of the FOC is an illogical combination of both Luther's and Erasmus's positions. Luther undoubtedly would have thought that the FOC had compromised the truth by going along with Erasmus in holding that all things aren't absolute and unavoidable, and that we have free will to reject God. That the position of the FOC is nonsense is apparent when one considers that predestination and free will are totally incompatible. If God has predestined only some to be saved, and only they are saved, which is the case according to Scripture, then it follows that those not predestined to be saved are therefore predestined to be damned, and it has absolutely nothing to do with any supposed free will decision by them not to believe. They're on the contrary predestined by God to not believe in Christ. The FOC has simply misinterpreted Scripture when it combines predestination and free will, because the Scriptures can't possibly teach things which are logically contradictory. It's not the case that there's only a seeming contradiction or paradox involved. It's a real contradiction and therefore the position of the FOC can't be true. It's a position which would be pleasing to us if it could be true because it would present God as a benevolent being according to our human understanding, but it can't be true and it isn't true. The FOC is guilty of not taking God as He has revealed Himself in Scripture, as the sole determiner of all that happens. It's His universe and He determines what happens in it, not us. A quote from Luther: The great difference between doctrine and life is obvious, even as is the difference between heaven and earth. Life may be unclean, sinful, and inconsistent; but doctrine must be pure, holy, sound, and unchanging. Life may show omissions and come short of what doctrine calls for. But from doctrine (says Christ, Matt. 5: 18) not a tittle or letter may be omitted, however much life may fail to meet the requirements of doctrine. This is so because doctrine is God's Word and God's truth alone, whereas life is partly our own doing. On this account doctrine must remain entirely pure. God will have patience with man's moral failings and imperfections and forgive them. But He cannot, will not, and shall not tolerate a man's altering or abolishing doctrine itself. For doctrine involves His exalted, divine Majesty itself. In the sphere of doctrine, therefore, forgiveness and patience are out of order. (W 30 Ill, 343 f -E 25, 62 -SL 16, 1675 f) What Luther Says 1230 It’s plain to me that Luther, were he to have lived beyond 1580, would not only have found fault with the Reformed, over principally the Lord’s Supper, but he would also have found fault with the Lutherans over their belief in single predestination and universal grace. Luther pointed people to their baptism for assurance, but this is only valid if one has faith, and such faith isn’t given to everyone in baptism, because the Holy Spirit isn’t always efficacious through the Word and sacraments. Luther in The Bondage of the Will rejected the view that the Holy Spirit is always tied to the Word so that all who hear it can be saved as long as they don’t resist the Spirit. Luther held that only those whom God determines will be converted become regenerate and believe the Gospel, and that this happens irresistibly.

[@mcfadden139]

I’m pretty sure Luther occasionally referenced council of orange to defend the bondage of will and the FOC yielded to the Second Council of Orange in 529 which rejects and condemns double predestination

[@Edward-ng8oo]

@@mcfadden139 According to Wikipedia the Second Council of Orange only denied double predestination of the equal-ultimacy variety, stating, "We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema." According to my understanding, equal-ultimacy means that God would be the originator of evil, who would intervene in people's lives to inject them with evil so that they would be damned, whereas Luther denied that God was the originator of evil. Although Luther held that God has predestined people to be damned, this he held was due to God's decision to leave people in their fallen state inherited from Adam, and not regenerate them with the Holy Spirit. I'm not aware of any reference Luther made to the Second Council of Orange. However if he did, it certainly can't have been to agree with single predestination, as he taught double predestination in The Bondage of the Will. For evidence of this see my comments below Dr Cooper's video: Bondage of the Will and Double Predestination kzbin.info/www/bejne/aYXOYWqZl9OgiM0

[@lorgaraurelian4076]

@@Edward-ng8oo The affirmation of passive predestination does not necessarily mean that Theodicy is put at the feet of God. The righteous are destined (not coerced) to heaven and the wicked are destined (not coerced) to hell. The Lord presents a true dichotomy for His children. He desires their salvation but He makes it plain to them where they will go if they're righteous or wicked. Much like the dichotomy He presented to Adam and Eve in Eden. Life or death.

[@Edward-ng8oo]

@@lorgaraurelian4076 I'm in agreement with Luther over the non-existence of free will. We can neither save nor damn ourselves through our own choice, but our eternal destinies have been decided in eternity by God, and we're predestined to be either saved or damned. This of course doesn't mean we're coerced against our will to either believe or disbelieve in Christ. We are by nature God's enemies through the fall of our first parents, and unless God regenerates us through the Holy Spirit, and gives us the will to believe in Christ, we willingly choose to continue our stubborn resistance to Him. I'm also in agreement with Luther over the fact that Christ's atonement wasn't limited to the elect, and that God truly desires the salvation of everyone though Christ. There's obviously a difficulty in reconciling this with His eternal hidden will which determines all that happens, but at least one isn't left with having to deal with a logical contradiction, as one has if one asserts that God has only predestined people to be saved, and the damned are headed for hell because of their own free will decision to resist being converted - which is the position of confessional Lutheranism.

[@Edward-ng8oo]

@@lorgaraurelian4076 Also I know in my initial post I made it sound as if I held that the damned are only passively predestined to be damned, but I was occupied with arguing against the confessional Lutheran position that people aren’t predestined to hell at all, but only to heaven. In actual fact God actively determines everything that happens, and people are chosen by Him in eternity to be either saved or damned.

[@TheDroc1990]

Nature of Grace and Sacraments. Ok going to bed now. Jk!! This one should be good!

[@chancha807]

Can you post the link for the first video of introduction please.

[@NathanaelPetucci]

Growing up Reformed Baptist and late Presbyterian, any reformed person who says the sacraments are essential to them is probably misguided or lying. Most Reformed Churches don't even partake of the Eucharist more than once a month. In fact, most Reformed laymen are probably ignorant of what Calvin and the Westminster Confession say about the spiritual nature of the Eucharist.

[@oracleoftroy]

That's funny. I'd say the same about Lutheran as they seem to think all Reformed people are Zwinglists. I don't know how often I've had to point out what my confession actually says about the Lord's supper, but most Lutherans won't hear it and insist I believe exactly as Zwingli did, and when I point out that I side with Calvin against Zwingli, they take that as further proof because they don't know what Calvin taught either and just assume he agreed with Zwingli. I find a lot of common ground between my confession (Westminster standards) and the Book of Concord, but it is impossible to talk to most Lutherans about it because they won't allow the facts to get in the way of their misconceptions about Reformed Theology.

[@NathanaelPetucci]

@@oracleoftroy Very strange and sad to hear. But glad to see you know what Calvin and the Westminster Confession say about the Lord's Supper

[@toddvoss52]

I agree with the assessment of the summary of the two trajectory's at about 23 minute mark at: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pnecpoeaj5l_n5Y. Great synthesis. The Reformed lens is sort of the same lens as the "Universalism" of David Bentley Hart but coming to a different conclusion. The "eternal decree" and the glory of God and trying to make "absolute" sense of it

[@sandygrogg1203]

PLEASE talk more so slowly, so your thoughts are clearer. Your kind just be raving! I have definitely learned a few things, and have enjoyed your videos..I just need to not to go at warp speed🥺

[@anonymoussource701]

no difference - both pish

[@toomanymarys7355]

Limited atonement is an invention of Calvin. And it's flat wrong.

[@reformedcatholic457]

Calvin didn't even believe in limited atonement.