Response to Francis Chan on the Eucharist

[@noreenfisher4356]

I'm so happy to find this channel. I have felt so alone in my thoughts and research . Cradle Roman Catholic, like someone below said. Lots of fear in leaving the one true Church and going to hell. However, All my growth, healing, and closeness to Jesus has come through my involvement with protestantism. I have been so torn. These videos are really helping me clarify things. I pray that our church can all become one.

[@StephenJahn]

God bless you, Noreen, with peace on your journey. I pray the Lord continues to guide you and keep you in his grace. Happily Protestant myself, I also enjoy the stillness and peace of Catholic worship, and often join as an observer. May the Lord indeed heal the wounds in his church. I'm sorry for your struggle in this, and God bless you again today, Noreen. 1 John 3:20

[@noreenfisher4356]

@@StephenJahn thank you so much. May God richly bless you in all you do.

[@richardounjian9270]

Evangelical preaching is longer and more entertaining because they only do that. They have no real form of worship because they reject the Mass. There are plenty of Catholic Bible studies too. Look into Fr Mike Schmitz Bible in a year. Great study by a dynamic speaker. God bless

[@johnflorio3576]

Stay Catholic. I left the Catholic Church for the siren song of Protestantism and it was an enlightening but disturbing experience. I came back to the Catholic Church through the grace of God.

[@jaredhanley6097]

Why not try out an Orthodox church?

[@MtlCstr]

A hurtle I see for transubstantiation is the fact that when Jesus instituted Communion and said the bread was His body and the wine His blood, He was sitting right there, intact, yet to suffer. That would tend to lend more credibility to a symbolic view. In fact, His purpose statement in Luke 22:19 was that we should do it "in remembrance" of Him. That certainly does not evoke any sort of physical renewal. He is certainly present with us, regardless (Matt. 28:20).

[@poordoubloon10]

That's a fair point, but the Eucharist is outside of time (obviously, if through it we in 2022 can have fellowship with Christ's presence)... therefore, when the Disciples ate and drank the bread and wine in the first century, they were engaged with the very same event that we are incorporated into when we eat and drink: Christ's Life, Death and Resurrection (two of which they hadn't even experienced sequentially, yet). Put another way, when they ate/drank they were experiencing the events of the next few days in advance of them actually occuring.. whereas, when we eat/drink, we are experiencing the same events which for us are two-thousand years in the past. The Temple sacrifices work in a similar way, but hundreds/thousands of years in advance of Christ.

[@MtlCstr]

@@poordoubloon10 Or perhaps it was just figurative and our communion with Christ in the receiving of the bread and wine is purely spiritual, which may be what you're saying. That's unclear. See Matthew 20:20-23; 26:39

[@matthewlipsey1733]

As we read in Colossians, Christ holds everything together...He is before all things. So as Israel ate the Manna in the wilderness wandering we are to eat Christ. But are we pooping Him out? Of course not. What use is that? We are to abide in Him. We are to consume Him...He wants to be with us and wants us to be in Him. It's a lot deeper than transubstantiation.

[@garymckenzie7196]

U are not allowed to drink blood from jews oral tradition so cannot be transtubstantiation as Jesus was not for changing the law but fulfilling the law

[@aar0n709]

@@garymckenzie7196 Jesus regularly broke Jewish law. He ate levitical bread and did work on the Sabbath

[@DanielApologetics]

Your channel is needed today! Keep up the good work

[@TruthUnites]

thanks Daniel!

[@goldenspoon87]

I'm Methodist. My grandmother (a Presbyterian) used to tell me that on the night before holy communion, I should repent of my sins, lest I consume judgment on myself. So in my experience I take it really seriously. There is real power in the bread and wine, and it certainly isn't mere symbolism.

[@hamontequila1104]

as a lutheran, i am happy to see somone who also believes in the true presence. God bless

[@UrsahSolar]

I take the memorial view of communion and I agree that it is a grievous sin to partake unworthily. Paul said, "29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. (have died)" - 1 Cor 11 I believe that communion is a sacred symbol of Christ's sacrifice, similar to how the ark in the old testament symbolized God's presence among his people. While these objects have no power of themselves, to disrespect these symbols is to disrespect the God who put them in place. God killed those who dared to touch His ark, and the same God struck down those who dared to be irreverent at the Lord's supper because it symbolizes the very broken body and spilled blood of the Lord himself.

[@darioveneziano3995]

Question is: how do you know for sure you are forgiven? I don't mean any fear mongering...but how does one know how grievous a sin is really and, especially, if we have true sorrow for it and are fully sincere in seeking forgiveness. I say that, because we can convince ourselves of all kinds of crazy things. In Jn 20:23, Jesus said ONLY TO THE APOSTLES IN CLOSED DOORS "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.” So there it is: Jesus meant for someone ELSE to discern our sins and guilt, and to have the POWER to forgive those sins. And those MEN were the APOSTLES. That POWER was not given to all believers, but ONLY to them and to those THEY imposed their hands on, transmitting that power. So, you want to have assurance your sins are forgiven? Confess them to a priest whose ordination can trace back to the APOSTLES and to him alone. That's Biblical Certainty.

[@goldenspoon87]

@@darioveneziano3995 I can be sure because I read the Bible and I believe it means what it says. 1 John 1:9. You should too.

[@UrsahSolar]

@@darioveneziano3995 Biblical certainty, except if you leave the confessional, have a lustful or wrathful thought, then drop dead of a heart attack. You died without confessing a mortal sin (Jesus said lust = adultery, and hate = murder) and are therefore heading straight to hell. Jesus said in John 10 that those who come to him he will NEVER cast out and once you are in his hand he will NEVER let go of you. The notion that you need to get saved over and over again by having your mortal sins forgiven IS BUNK.

[@JohnHenry-wr1hs]

8:27 Thank you, I am enjoying many of your videos, love your teaching style, and especially your understanding and grace toward opposing views. As a small church pastor, and former Catholic, I want to continue to grow in my understanding of church history and theology throughout the ages. I would only suggest that along with your many references to church fathers and theologians, you also incorporate more of the actual scriptures that specifically address the points you are making. Thank you for your study, your love of the church, and your sharing these with us. Keep up the good work, and do not grow weary. Your teaching is so necessary in these times of deception.

[@Ari-ih2nl]

DITTO. ! !

[@BibelFAQ]

I hope your channel really blows up some day... Such amazing content. Really looking forward to it!!! It has blessed me so much already.

[@TruthUnites]

That is so great to hear! Thanks for sharing that. Hope you enjoy this one too!

[@josemannyhernandez4760]

Exactly. I hope this channel blows up. I recently started watching his videos. 😆

[@MyHomeYourHomeOurHome]

Excellent presentation of historical views and refutation of myths about Protestant views! As someone who grew up with an entirely memorialistic view of the Eucharist/Communion from an anabaptist background, I was surprised when I learned that there are Protestants (Luther, Calvin, etc.) who held a real presence view and all the differences that there have been throughout Church history. Your video was so helpful for sorting through all this! Thank you!

[@TruthUnites]

So glad it was helpful!

[@liljade53]

I care about what view Jesus wanted us to hold about the bread and the cup. I just do not think He wanted us to think that the bread and the wine actually became His body and blood. It's putting too much emphasis on the bread and the wine, when the emphasis should be on what it represents, rather than the the elements themselves. Jesus said "Do this in REMEMBRANCE OF ME". He did NOT say "DO this because THIS IS ME". Luke 22:20 "This CUP is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." 'Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me." I think that if He wanted us to view the elements as His actual body and blood, transubstantiation, that it would be a no brainer. He would not ask us to do it to remember Him. I grew up Catholic, too, but it makes no sense that He would be present in the bread any more than He is present in our hearts because He imparted the Holy Spirit to us when we were born again.

[@katiecugini979]

​@liljade53 John 6:53-56. Jesus said to them, 'I assure you, unless you eat the flesh of the Human One and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. My flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.

[@katiecugini979]

​@liljade53 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” 52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. Many Disciples Desert Jesus 60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

[@katiecugini979]

​@liljade53 he never said in John 6 even after some of Jesus's followers started to leave because Jesus clearly said, "You must eat my flesh", Jesus didn't say to them don't walk out guys I just mean symbolically.

[@benyaeger4388]

Gavin. God bless you for your efforts throughout the years

[@ZachMetzger1377]

Just found this channel and I’m becoming a huge fan!! Very good content for someone looking for an educated Protestant perspective

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks so much, glad it is useful for you!

[@DavidAzua]

If you want accurate catholic information please see Catholic Productions. The worst place to find catholic information is from someone who isn't a practicing catholic.

[@arminius504]

@@DavidAzua and popular Catholic apologists. At least in my experience. So many are disingenuous.

[@ΓραικοςΕλληνας]

@@TruthUnites i am greek orthodox i read only the original language text of the New Testament never translations i would be a satanic liar if i say that the Eucharist is not the reall body and blood of Jesus Christ as i read and understand the original language text of the New Testament

[@eriksmith4547]

I love how well you crystallize the main arguments and provide a fair evaluation of the debate. Thank you.

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks Erik! Glad it was of use!

[@laiquende9971]

Excited for this one! You’re channel has been extremely helpful to me so thanks

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks for telling me that, I’m so glad. Hope this one will be helpful too.

[@elderj.waller-journeyinthe470]

You speak as if "low church evangelicalism" is a small group of people. If you grow up in the US, low chirch Zwinglian view of communion is extremely popular. I've been in several church traditions and visited hundreds of churches and never heard of "real presence." I've always heard "memorial", "symbolic", "represents" etc., but never speaking as if Christ is present in any way other than the general omnipresence. So I would not say it's a myth that protestants don't believe in the real presence. I think it's a myth to say ALL protestants disbelieve in real presence.

[@duckymomo7935]

The zwinglian view is a fringe view. We’re not memorialists.

[@IAmisMaster]

@@duckymomo7935 “Fringe”, as in you have stastical evidence showing few Christians agree with Zwingli’s symbolism compared to any kind of real presence? I would like to see that.

[@Apriluser]

1.5-1.8 billion Christians (RC and Orthodox and some Anglicans - of which I’m one) believe in real presence or transubstantiation. Not a small number.

[@HannahClapham]

@Progger_Frogger Probably 90% of conservative Protestantism is low-church Evangelicalism and almost all of these believers are memorialists (Baptists, Pentecostals, and whatnot). The problem is that these masses are only tangentially Protestant. Those who are actually true to their lineage-to the magisterial Reformation-are almost all in the Real Presence camp: Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. So, it’s not so much true about “Protestants” in general. But among those who are the most in line with the original movement, it is quite true. In other words, a “Protestant’s Protestant” believes in the Real Presence.

[@barelyprotestant5365]

@@IAmisMaster a majority of Roman Catholics believe fake presence is the view of Roman Catholicism.

[@abelburke]

Thank you Gavin, this was really helpful in preparing for my sermon on Sunday.

[@davidandrew3576]

Truth Unites ... you are Awesome ... Awesome !!! Thank-you.

[@michaelhebert5334]

Agree with your concerns. Grateful for your channel.

[@nyc88s]

Gavin I love your videos. You are tremendously intelligent, fair, honest, articulate. Even though my personal leanings are very high church, I really love listening to your thinking. Thank you!

[@revelationpalado4183]

Thank you for this video. well explained. Very good content.

[@zerowork7631]

It's amazing how I was looking for this info and 25 min ago this was posted

[@TruthUnites]

ha, nice timing!

[@Adam-ue2ig]

Your videos are refreshing and a blessing with such a charitable tone, gentle, humble and respectful presentation while also substantial, intellectual and scholarly. A part of me wishes you were more polemical and confrontational (for lack of better term) like the Protestants of Old such as Luther and Calvin. In any case you are a shining example of Christian Scholar that I admire.

[@TruthUnites]

Thank you! I am glad the videos are of use! I will keep trying to aim for the balance of truth and love, and I am sure I often fall short!

[@mynameis......23]

@@TruthUnites Debunking catholicism I'm more blessed than mary Proof = Luke 11:27-28 27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!” 28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” In Luke 11:27 that random woman LITERALLY said Jesus your mother is Blessed, but are Lord Jesus LITERALLY said Believers are more Blessed than mary. Amen and Amen _________________________ CHRIST alone John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. Acts 4:12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus _________________________ Work of God = John 6:28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.” _________________________ 1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach Paul allows bishops to get marry, but catholic church goes against paul. Now these catholic will give a Verses from 1 Corinthians7 to say that paul gave the advice to stay unmarried. But they will not tell you that the same chapter they quote says 1 Corinthians 7:28 "even if you do marry, you have not SINNED". The passage literally says "young women, young men" and a bishop is supposed to be a Church ELDER. Mic drop _________________________ Jesus said Matthew 23:9 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And also said Holy Father to Heavenly Father= John 17:11 11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. Jesus said call no one Father but still catholics call *pope holy father. Sad _________________________ Whenever a catholic argue about mary being the mother of God Use this to defeat the argument. Luke 8:21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.” Matthew 12:46-50 46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.” 48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”. Mark 3:35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.” John 19:26-27 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. ( Jesus basically said John is the son of mary, and mary is the mother of John from that time onwards). By the way sarah is the mother of all proof=Galatians 4:21-26. _________________________ We should not pray to apostles Romans 1:25 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Acts 10:25-26 25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.” Acts 14:15 15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them, Revelation 19:10 10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” Revelation 22:8-9 8 Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things. 9 Then he said to me, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God." Colossians 2:18 18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, You cannot go to Father through saints nor mary, you can only go to the Father through Lord Jesus Christ= John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Ephesians 2:18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father. Holy Spirit intercedes for us=Romans 8:26 26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And CHRIST as well=Romans 8:34 34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. Hebrews 7:25 25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. It's Christ and Holy Spirit who intercedes for us not apostles _________________________ There is only one Mediator between God and men LORD Jesus Christ= 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus. Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. Hebrew 12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. Hebrew 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. _________________________ Apostles are allowed to marry, 1 Corinthians 9:1-5 1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. 3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we have no right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? If Peter (peter is cephas read John 1:42) the so called "first pope" was married, why does the catholic church doesn't allow "pope" to marry? _________________________ The so called vicar of christ/ pope/holy father Peter called himself a fellow elder in 1 Peter 5:1, and as per the qualifications of elder in Titus 1:5-9 the elder is allowed to get married; then why does the "pope" is required to be celibate and catholic? ( when Peter was neither celibate nor catholic). 1)Peter was not perfect human nor was he a perfect disciple 2)He sank down while walking on water 3)Our Lord said to peter get behind me satan 4)Peter reject our Lord 3 times 5)Our Lord rebuked Peter for calling fire from heaven 6)Our Lord rebuked Peter when he cut of the soilders ear 7)Paul rebuked Peter for being hypocrite because he was acting different in front of Jews and different in front of gentiles. 8) Moses messed up, and he was a important part of Bible ( that's why he never entered the promised land), 9)David messed up ( and he has the Holy Spirit), 10)King Soloman messed up, 11) Saul messed up and God regretted the decision (1 Samuel 15:10-11). Hatrick (Saul then David then Soloman back to back messed up) 12)The apostles run away a day before Lord Jesus got locked up. 13)The early church messed up Rev 2:18-20 14) Apostle John when receiving Revelation worshiped an angel and the angel said "see you do not do that. Worship GOD" Revelation 22:8-9 If these great people could mess up, why do you think the catholic church wouldn't mess up. ____________________________________ Galatians 4:21-26 21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. Sarah is mother of all, Not mary. _________________________ Also the Church has many name like Christians, Evangelists, Children of God, Believers, servents of God, bride of Christ, but not once the Church is called catholics. _________________________ Also, if the apostles didn't wrote it, I don't want it

[@RhenishHelm]

What you said about the historic practice of withholding communion from the laity reminds me of experiences I had in Russian and Romanian Orthodox Churches. At the point in the liturgy, when the priest says, "In the fear of God, with faith and with love, draw near" (which would usually be followed by the dispensing of communion), in these churches, the priest just turned around and walked back into the altar area to close out the service. None of the people in attendance partook. There wasn't even a pause to see if anyone was willing to receive it. It was just, "here's the sacrament, but not for you; now let's rejoice about it."

[@BarbaPamino]

They were in heresy to do that. Especially in 2020. It is the real presence of the Blood and Body of Christ and absolutely should be shared with all that have faith in the Lord. Past heresies are not proof that that a broken rule deems the rule obsolete.

[@mertonhirsch4734]

Romanian, Russian and Serbian churches all distributed the Eucharist every week prior to the communist takeovers of those countries. At that time, for a variety of reasons around protecting people from persecution by the state, it was generally withheld, but many in those churches came to view it as the norm.

[@jgiaq]

Thank you! Communion and the reality of Jesus therein have been so important to my journey in the faith. It's so easy to become frustrated with only hearing about the "mere memorial" view when the truth is so much greater. I don't know how or why people can reject the real presence, even if the exact mode of how that happens is a bit unclear at times.

[@bazzy8376]

John6:62 "But Jesus, inwardly aware that his disciples were complaining over it, said to them, Does this try your faith? 63 What will you make of it, if you see the Son of Man ascending to the place where he was before? 64 Only the spirit gives life; the flesh is of no avail; and the words I have been speaking to you are spirit, and life.[9] 65 But there are some, even among you, who do not believe." I think He's saying "the spirit" is the source of faith. This hard saying about Jesus being real food can only be understood with faith. Our flesh (brain) is no help. Even Peter admitted that it made no sense but he knew that Jesus' words were the words of eternal life.

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

This is something I'm seeking God on. I've been going to Mass and really giving the Catholic teaching of the Eucharist and transubstantiation a fair shake. Really seeking to understand their dogma on it. It's reverential, done in absolute reverence for the body of Jesus, as in a real presence. It still feels incomplete, and I think the focus on the flesh might be the key. Is it wrong? Wrong is the wrong term, it just feels incomplete, as in we all see through a glass darkly. I think @Bazzy has hit on some of that incompleteness, that the focus on the flesh is not enough, that it's the Spirit that gives life. Also, Jesus is the living Word, that brought all things into being, and by him was nothing made that is ever made. The stronger reverence for Jesus as the Word is also a key, which is the stronger protestant emphasis. I'm still struggling w/ that human seeing through a glass darkly, but it feels like God has a deeper revelation that will break through as I seek this diligently.

[@el-sig2249]

I get. He is emphatic and literal when He says my "Flesh is real food, my blood is real drink." John 6:55.

[@mynameis......23]

Debunking catholicism I'm more blessed than mary Proof = Luke 11:27-28 27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!” 28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” In Luke 11:27 that random woman LITERALLY said Jesus your mother is Blessed, but are Lord Jesus LITERALLY said Believers are more Blessed than mary. Amen and Amen _________________________ CHRIST alone John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. Acts 4:12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus _________________________ Work of God = John 6:28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.” _________________________ 1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach Paul allows bishops to get marry, but catholic church goes against paul. Now these catholic will give a Verses from 1 Corinthians7 to say that paul gave the advice to stay unmarried. But they will not tell you that the same chapter they quote says 1 Corinthians 7:28 "even if you do marry, you have not SINNED". The passage literally says "young women, young men" and a bishop is supposed to be a Church ELDER. Mic drop _________________________ Jesus said Matthew 23:9 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And also said Holy Father to Heavenly Father= John 17:11 11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. Jesus said call no one Father but still catholics call *pope holy father. Sad _________________________ Whenever a catholic argue about mary being the mother of God Use this to defeat the argument. Luke 8:21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.” Matthew 12:46-50 46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.” 48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”. Mark 3:35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.” John 19:26-27 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. ( Jesus basically said John is the son of mary, and mary is the mother of John from that time onwards). By the way sarah is the mother of all proof=Galatians 4:21-26. _________________________ We should not pray to apostles Romans 1:25 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Acts 10:25-26 25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.” Acts 14:15 15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them, Revelation 19:10 10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” Revelation 22:8-9 8 Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things. 9 Then he said to me, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God." Colossians 2:18 18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, You cannot go to Father through saints nor mary, you can only go to the Father through Lord Jesus Christ= John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Ephesians 2:18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father. Holy Spirit intercedes for us=Romans 8:26 26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And CHRIST as well=Romans 8:34 34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. Hebrews 7:25 25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. It's Christ and Holy Spirit who intercedes for us not apostles _________________________ There is only one Mediator between God and men LORD Jesus Christ= 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus. Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. Hebrew 12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. Hebrew 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. _________________________ Apostles are allowed to marry, 1 Corinthians 9:1-5 1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. 3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we have no right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? If Peter (peter is cephas read John 1:42) the so called "first pope" was married, why does the catholic church doesn't allow "pope" to marry? _________________________ The so called vicar of christ/ pope/holy father Peter called himself a fellow elder in 1 Peter 5:1, and as per the qualifications of elder in Titus 1:5-9 the elder is allowed to get married; then why does the "pope" is required to be celibate and catholic? ( when Peter was neither celibate nor catholic). 1)Peter was not perfect human nor was he a perfect disciple 2)He sank down while walking on water 3)Our Lord said to peter get behind me satan 4)Peter reject our Lord 3 times 5)Our Lord rebuked Peter for calling fire from heaven 6)Our Lord rebuked Peter when he cut of the soilders ear 7)Paul rebuked Peter for being hypocrite because he was acting different in front of Jews and different in front of gentiles. 8) Moses messed up, and he was a important part of Bible ( that's why he never entered the promised land), 9)David messed up ( and he has the Holy Spirit), 10)King Soloman messed up, 11) Saul messed up and God regretted the decision (1 Samuel 15:10-11). Hatrick (Saul then David then Soloman back to back messed up) 12)The apostles run away a day before Lord Jesus got locked up. 13)The early church messed up Rev 2:18-20 14) Apostle John when receiving Revelation worshiped an angel and the angel said "see you do not do that. Worship GOD" Revelation 22:8-9 If these great people could mess up, why do you think the catholic church wouldn't mess up. ____________________________________ Galatians 4:21-26 21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. Sarah is mother of all, Not mary. _________________________ Also the Church has many name like Christians, Evangelists, Children of God, Believers, servents of God, bride of Christ, but not once the Church is called catholics. _________________________ Also, if the apostles didn't wrote it, I don't want it

[@mynameis......23]

@@el-sig2249 you still are not understanding his point

[@roberthaddad7850]

The Fathers of the Church do not represent “the best of Catholicism”, they represent what Catholicism/early Christianity actually received from Christ and the Apostles, in contrast to the man-made and contradictory Eucharist theologies of 16th century Protestantism. Francis Chan in his sincerity is realising this and may all Protestants by the grace of God hopefully one day do as well🙏🙏🙏

[@austromyrtus]

Did you listen to the last 10 minutes? Do you believe in communion as a yearly event with only bread and priest drinks only wine?

[@susanthgeorgethomas7942]

Really amazing to be informed about the Eucharist in the Protestant movement.

[@kylevantine1536]

So incredibly helpful. Thank you for responding to Francis Chan's comments.

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks Kyle!

[@gardengirlmary]

Would love a video about the church Fathers! I just finished reading the Didache and 1st letter of Clement. Appreciate all your work Dr Ortlund

[@lynobird9197]

Hey Gavin, I really appreciate your videos. I’m a Catholic who is drawn to Protestantism, particularly due to the view of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness over the infusion of grace that Catholics are given the free will to cooperate with. I immediately sense a greater sense of peace with God from a more Protestant interpretation of the Gospel. In fact, I can relate to Luther, as I’m sure many Catholics can, in the sense that my experience coming back to the Catholic faith has led to more anxiety, confusion, and despair the last 5 years than when I was living a secular lifestyle (I’m a cradle Catholic that came back to the faith in my mid-twenties.) What keeps me Catholic is the issue of authority, the historical analysis of the early church that seems to favor Catholics (Scott Hahn has largely shaped this view for me), and the evidence of Eucharistic Miracles/Marian apparitions, which I find extremely powerful/convincing. What would your advice be for someone in my shoes? Is there a particular book, beyond scripture, that you would recommend in order to get a better understanding of whether I should join a local Protestant congregation versus remaining Catholic? For me, it seems like I’m unsure of whether I care more about my individual status as a wretched sinner who wants to be at peace with God, which feels leans me more towards Protestantism, or whether I care more about the fact that leaving the Catholic faith can be legitimately seen as abandoning the church that Jesus Christ founded/wants me to be in; ie. What if I’m wrong for the rest f my life and the Catholic Church does indeed have the fullness of truth? Any thoughts would be appreciated. It’s been a rocky 5 years mulling these issues in my head to myself..

[@TruthUnites]

Hello! Just said a prayer for you. I don't have time for an in-depth response but I hope my videos might be useful. May the Lord direct you and guide you.

[@elizabethking5523]

@lynobird9197, I read your comment and I just wanted to encourage you. I am a Protestant now taking RCIA classes. I want you to know that I am where I am bc I have seen in several prot/evangelical churches how this seeker sensitive stuff has REALLY messed things up. You would be shocked at what goes on in prot/ evangelical churches. I imagine you’d be there and in no time, you would be running back the the Catholic faith. Sitting in these churches, pretty much anything goes. In a large congregation you’ve got people believing in all sorts of different doctrine! Do u know that they don’t believe (most) that baptism has anything to do with your sins? Or that baptism saves you? Or washes anyway sin? It’s just an outward sign of an inward belief! (Bc the water isn’t “magical”) and you really don’t even have to be baptized to be in that church. I have seen college age kids baptize each other and “slam dunk “ their friend ,or the pastor weans off and doesn’t even finish saying In the name of the Father, and the Son and the ___.(dunk)and brings the next person in. I’ve witnessed churches only offer the Lords Supper 3 times a year which is ONLY symbolic of remembrance and it may not even get prayed over with thanksgiving!!! It’s getting pretty crazy! I couldn’t take it anymore! Listen, don’t mull these things over in your mind alone - that’s how one becomes depressed. Instead, get a notebook and or at least speak it out loud each day what you are thankful for! Thanking God for at least several things a day … for seeing someone else care for someone, seeing a beautiful sunset, anything! Gratitude breaks the bonds of stress and anxiety. Talk with your priest or a trusted faithful Catholic. God wants you to have joy. Now, it is more difficult having this joy bc of what we all have been thru lately and the evil in the world at an all time high, but Jesus said when you see these things taking place…. Look up!! For your redemption draws nigh! Trust Him! ❤️He knows your heart and your struggles. If you believe in the apostolic authority, you will be very disappointed in a non Catholic Church - I would think. But, blessings to you in your search. Get some good rest, sunshine and serve others and pray- that usually takes care of rest!😀🙏🏻

[@Norbingel]

@@elizabethking5523 It seems to me you didn't watch the video as Gavin directly addresses the things you say. I could give you examples of Catholic teachings and practices here where I'm from that would appall you. But it's not the practices of certain people that matter but whether those are in line with official doctrine.

[@staza1]

​@@elizabethking5523 Yes, there are some protestant churches that are even more messed up than Catholicism. But keep in mind that Catholicism is just one of hundreds of denominations of Christianity, each with their own set of beliefs and doctrines. The only difference is Catholicism is bigger because it has a longer history of collecting money and building power over the centuries. I was Catholic for 30 years before finding true freedom in Christ. Through reading the holy scriptures. There are so many passages in scripture that completely contradict what Catholicism teaches. That's why I can't possibly be Catholic anymore. Please help me understand the following differences between Catholic teaching and what the Bible says:, 1. Why do you continue to pray to Mary when Jesus himself rebuked those who tried to call her blessed? And why did Mary call Jesus her savior if she's sinless? What was Jesus saving her from? (Note: the doctrine of Mary was not even made until 1950. Did your church have it wrong before then?) Why does you religion teach that Mary is a mediator between God and man, when the Bible says in 1 Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus" 2. What did Jesus mean when he commanded us to never call anyone else "father" in Mat 23:9? Why do you disobey this as a Catholic and call priests father, when Jesus said you have one father? 3. What does your church tolerate having over 50% of men in catholic seminaries homosexual when the Bible clearly teaches that it's an abomination? Why have tens of thousands of children been abused by the so-called holy leaders of your church? Why do previous popes and bishops constantly reassign known sex offenders so they can continue to abuse children? Why does your church continue to take so much money from parishioners and use it to pay off the families of abuse victims? These things happen in other churches but they happen in the Catholic church to a much much higher degree, because of forced celibacy and the perversions it creates. 4. Tell me, what does Paul mean below when he says that any doctrine that forces men not to marry is a doctrine from demons? 1 Timothy 4:1-3 "Now the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will depart from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and the teachings of demons, [3] They forbid marriage and demand abstinence" 5. Explain why in your church history, the Catholic hierarchy did everything they could to prevent the masses from Reading scripture. They killed people by burning them at the stake who tried to translate scripture so that the masses could read them. Why? 6. Why did the Catholic Church work so hard to gain political power, and burn people alive who question the absolute authority of the Pope? Isn't it obvious that the only reason the Catholic church is so big and so powerful today is because of its ruthlessness and hunger for money and power in the past. 7. How can you call Peter the first pope and single church leader, when there is nothing in scriptures that even remotely reveals him to be the leader of the church. In fact the few times decisions were made they were made as a group council of the apostles, and Jesus's brother James seem to have more authority. And for the first few hundred years all of the bishops work together to solidify doctrine. It wasn't until the bishop of Rome demanded absolute power and started punishing those other bishops who fought him. And many other bishops did fight the bishop of Rome when he tried to seize absolute power. 8. Why do you baptize infants when not a single infant was ever baptized in scripture by the apostles? Do you really believe that magic happens and the baby is saved even though they have no choice in the matter? That's how all the baptisms in the Bible took place, from an adult that made a decision to follow christ. 9. What did your own Saint Augustine mean when he said that scriptures cannot be wrong, but the church can be wrong, so scripture is far superior to doctrine taught by Church elders?: Augustine: "But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted; and further, that even the church Councils are often corrected by those which follow them (On Baptism 2.3.4)" 10. Please tell me why Martin Luther was wrong for protesting that your Catholic Church was greedily taking money from the poor to buy indulgences for their relatives so that they would spend less time in purgatory. 11. How can your church continue to force celibacy on men, when the man you claim to be your own founder, Peter, was clearly married. When Jesus healed his mother-in-law in Luke 4:38, and when Paul said the following in 1Cor 9:5: "Don’t we have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife like the other apostles, the Lord’s brothers, and Peter? " 12. Why does your church teach that anyone who says that you are saved by grace alone and not by works is to be cursed. It is the exact opposite of what Paul says several times. Go look up your own church teachings and you'll see it actually teaches this. And of course since your church can never be wrong, nothing that was ever taught in the past can be corrected. 13. Why does your church teaching in canon III below teach that the mass is actually a resacrifice of Christ and that the mass itself causes salvation, and that anyone who says the mass is not a real sacrifice is cursed?: "Canon iii. If any one shall say, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice offered on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice;[16]... let him be anathema.". This is exactly opposite to what Paul teaches, that Jesus died once and for all and was the final sacrifice. 14. Why do Catholics say that protestants theology was invented in 1600 and before that everything was Catholic. This is false. Here are the Names of pre reformation protestant groups: the Waldensians, Bohemian reformation/Jan huss, Arnold of Brescia, the Tondrakians, Peter of Bruys, Henry of Lausanne, the Dulcinians, Giralamo savanorola, the spiritual Franciscans.. There would have been a lot more vocal protestants speaking and writing thru early history if Rome hadn't keep burning them alive. For example, in 1100AD, the pre-reformation Waldensians wrote they're articles of confession: We believe and firmly maintain all that is contained in the twelve articles of the symbol, commonly called the apostles’ creed, and we regard as heretical whatever is inconsistent with the said twelve articles. 7. That Christ is our life, and truth, and peace, and righteousness - our shepherd and advocate, our sacrifice and priest, who died for the salvation of all who should believe, and rose again for their justification. 8. And we also firmly believe, that there is no other mediator, or advocate with God the Father, but Jesus Christ. And as to the Virgin Mary, she was holy, humble, and full of grace; and this we also believe concerning all other saints 9. We also believe, that, after this life, there are but two places - one for those that are saved, the other for the damned, which [two] we call paradise and hell, wholly denying that imaginary purgatory of Antichrist, invented in opposition to the truth. 10. Moreover, we have ever regarded all the inventions of men [in the affairs of religion] as an unspeakable abomination before God; such as the festival days and vigils of saints, and what is called holy-water, the abstaining from flesh on certain days, and such like things, but above all, the masses 12 We consider the Sacraments as signs of holy things, or as the visible emblems of invisible blessings 13. We acknowledge no sacraments [as of divine appointment] but baptism and the Lord’s supper

[@TheChristianNationalist8692]

LynoBird, How is it going with your search? If you would like I can communicate in depth on the issues that make rc impossible and therefore their claims on your conscience to be ameliorated. I know it can be hard these issues, they can be very disorienting, but the Lord has the best possible plans for them who suffer lost for His name. Message me back if you would like to get the information which I would hope in the future you would speak to other catholics in love about rome’s false authority over the consciences saints. God rest

[@carolynbillington9018]

excellent help

[@hallelujahize]

Awesome presentation. God bless.

[@TruthUnites]

glad you enjoyed!

[@zekdom]

3:41 - Zwingli’s view on the Eucharist 3:53 - Luther’s view on the Eucharist 5:56 - Difference between Luther and Calvin’s understanding of “real presence”

[@saywhat8476]

It has changed drastically since, and is still unresolved within Protestantism

[@ScottKlaudt]

Good presentation still makes zero sense. Constantly picking and choosing what the fathers said and then giving a Protestant overview which still has no authority anywhere. Most reformed churches take the Eucharist once a quarter now.

[@marksmale827]

What you have brought home in this excellent video is something of which I have become increasingly aware, how far so much of latter-day Protestantism has drifted from its Protestant (and Catholic) roots. And how ironic the lack of eucharistic belief and practice is in view of how important retrieving it for the laity was for the Reformers! Life is full of ironies.... And it reminded me of those priceless words which came out of the Second Vatican Council: "The Eucharist: the Source and Summit of the Christian life". It is truly "a pearl of great price" (Matthew 13:45-46). Who can blame folk who want more of the presence of God in their lives for joining the ancient churches of Rome or Constantinople where the Eucharist is available daily or weekly?

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks Mark, great thoughts! I'm totally tracking with you.

[@marksmale827]

@@TruthUnites Thank you Gavin. God bless you richly.

[@ChristopherWentling]

I understand what pastor is constantly saying about some protest reformers believed in the True presence but I can tell you that the reality is in the Lutheran church which I attended it mistakenly taught in catechism consubstantiation and like pastor is always saying that regardless of the teaching what is the end result? I can tell you that the Eucharist was treated as an annoyance. As far as belief in the transubstantiation you are correct that belief in that in itself is not necessary as orthodox refuse to explain how the mystery works. I can tell you when I go to apostolic churches: Coptic, Syrian, orthodox, Catholic it is more than clear that the churches fundamentally believe in the true presence and no matter what quotes you give me of this reformer or that it is more than obvious of what the living experience of these churches (Protestant) is. Yes the growing restriction of the species in both kinds was something I think was an unfortunate development. I go further and agree with the orthodox in the communicating of infants.

[@marksmale827]

@YAJUN YUAN I don’t understand what you mean by “much of a muchness” in this context.

[@marksmale827]

@YAJUN YUAN It matters to me because I want to know the truth. The fullness of truth. Christ is sovereign and can do whatever He chooses.

[@firingallcylinders2949]

I work at a Catholic School and you've grounded me in my faith. Keep up the good content!

[@TruthUnites]

so glad it's been helpful! Thanks for letting me know.

[@WhiteBraveheart1]

Well, I hope you give the Catholics a chance as well. God Bless.

[@tony1685]

talk about nonsense - i was catholic 35 yrs, it's not at all Biblical Christianity. let me know if you need proof.

[@MrTheKing537]

@@tony1685 I would like to hear it.

[@tony1685]

@@MrTheKing537 thanks Robert! will be brief and pray you grasp and ask me about anything which catches your eye (ear). Bible is clear, this is all about worship - and His Ten Commandments are how we show our Creator worship. well - the Bible shows that there will be a kingdom (counterfeit 'church' attached) which will set up false worship and instill false rules. let us take a quick journey through a few Bible basics: in Heaven - Lucifer told God that he will be like Him and be worshiped (Isaiah 14 / Ezek 28). the first death was Cain, he killed Abel - Abel worshiped as God said, Cain did it his way - he was jealous and murdered his brother. in Esther - Mordecai would not bow to Haman (2nd Command) - a law was made contrary God's law - Haman was destroyed, Mordecai wasn't! in Dan 3 - 3 hebrew boys would not bow to false worship - a law was made contrary God's law - they were spared by God! in Dan 6 - Daniel would not pray to the king (1st Command) - a law was made contrary God's law - Daniel was spared, the bad were destroyed! well - in our day - Revelation 13 - a false 'church' sitting on a political government makes a law contrary God's law. the United States has already passed _'blue laws'_ thorough the Supreme Court. the papacy has told this world that their day of worship, the sun worship (from Mythra) day is their day and they even *ADMIT* to this change! Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol 4, page 153 - _'Sabbath to Sunday'_ in their own words: _'our ecclesiastical _*_mark_*_ of authority {over the Bible} is the change from Sabbath to Sunday'_ and yet - the 7th day Sabbath will be kept by all who desire Heaven (Rev 22:14, John 14:15) and even kept in Heaven to come (Isaiah 66:22-23)! let me know if you have questions Robert - as i did for over 35 yrs of being catholic. but now i love to teach Truth! GBY and yours, Sir 😜

[@p.johnson7655]

Very clear, Gavin. Keep up the good work!

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks!

[@juliolopez5630]

I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And this bread, which I will give for the life of the world, is My flesh."

[@TreyVanCamp]

This was so helpful. Thank you 🙌🏼🙌🏼🙌🏼

[@TruthUnites]

glad you found it useful!

[@msmutola682]

Hey Trey. love your sessions with Ruslan and crew. Are you gonna throw in this issue sometime? The last time you tried to throw in matters about "Christian tradition", somebody wasn't feeling it :-D

[@TreyVanCamp]

@@msmutola682 thanks brother! I’m definitely still learning but I want to. Who was it that wasn’t picking it up? I forget 🤣👊🏼

[@malcolmhayes9201]

Beautiful video! Thanks for educating me on the history of my faith and tradition. :)

[@videogamesambience7377]

Solid video on this topic! And seemingly quite novel seeing as so few people are taking on this debate with enough seriousness amongst protestants. I, like many others, am a protestant who is being swayed towards the orthodox tradition based on a collection of arguments that have become very compelling to me, while being relatively untouched by modern protestants. I love the emphasis on unity, and I love the statement of “analyzing Christian traditions on their best terms“. Thanks for the insight!

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks! Would be curious to hear about what is leading you to Orthodoxy sometime. It's a shame Protestants don't touch those arguments more, but I agree they don't. God bless.

[@JohnRobenault]

Thank you for upholding the importance of communion in the historic protestant churches

[@drummersagainstitk]

You're doing the JOB! Thanks

[@Animangamer]

As a long member of nondenominational church’s, I have been studying much church history in the last few years. I have been convicted of my long believed “symbolic” idea of communion. Lord may I take of your sacred table from a true view of the Eucharist. That your body and blood is found in true food and true drink. In, with and under the bread and wine as put beautifully by Lutheran doctrine. God bless.

[@cd6104]

This is really helpful. Thank you.

[@squizza28]

Great video! Settles the score.

[@westlakechurchnyon2477]

Incredibly helpful I get frustrated by the misrepresentations and caricatures I hear about Protestant views of the Lord's Supper all the time. This was particularly pronounced when people were discussing whether the Lord's Supper could be celebrated on line

[@TruthUnites]

glad it was helpful!

[@westlakechurchnyon2477]

@@TruthUnites It was, thank you for the time you put into these resources

[@aw8643]

This is a great video. Thank you so much for putting it together Gavin. It is a kind and balanced response. I think my challenge is that although the initial reformers did hold to the view of true presence in some form. The detaching from a central teaching Church has lead to the deterioration of this teaching in modern day Protestantism. Within 100 years of the initial reformers there were many groups of Christian’s who no longer held the Eucharist or communion as part of worship at all. You are sharing such beautiful truth, but you are having to hold it together for Protestants because of the way teaching deteriorates when scripture alone provides authority.

[@samueljennings4809]

I agree to an extent. I personally hold to “prima scriptura”, recognising the importance of Tradition but recognising that as Scripture is a reflection of Apostolic Doctrine (since the early church did put together the apostolic writings by the Lord’s apostles), it is the ultimate guiding authority for what is acceptable.

[@jmschmitten]

The real presence debate does not demand this much overthinking: The historically earliest heretics, the Gnostics, condemned what was later called Nicene Christianity because it was a faith of human sacrifice and cannibalism. That criticism arose in the same century as Christ’s death (I.e., the first). That criticism does not make sense unless the reader would have understood that Christians were feasting on Christ’s body.

[@MissKristen-di4xw]

This is excellent and much needed content, thank you! Historic Protestantism = 💖

[@KunchangLeeMusic]

Thanks 🙏🏼 looking forward to this

[@TruthUnites]

hope you enjoy!

[@chrisj123165]

This should be good! Have you seen his recent interview with Remnant Radio where he clarified some of his positions?

[@TruthUnites]

yes, I just watched it recently!

[@Adam-ue2ig]

Me too

[@fatherglenn1]

Gavin, you mentioned at the end of your "Francis Chan on the Eucharist" response video, you would do a talk on the Church Father's view of Holy Eucharist. Also, you hoped to do a video on classic Protestant views of the Lord's Supper in comparison/contrast to Eastern Orthodoxy. Were those talks produced? I'm not finding them in a search. Also, would you discuss why the Reformers were opposed to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation both theologically and pastorally. Your work has been of great help to me. I minister in an Anglican-ethos environment. Every now and then, we have clergy polemicizing for the Roman Catholic Church or we have priests advocating for a move toward Eastern Orthodoxy. I have shared the above video with several of our clergy to inform and challenge mischaracterizations/myths regarding the historic Protestant views of the Holy Eucharist. All your videos are helpful. Thanks so much. I am very small contributor to your Patreon account, I hope to do more in the near future.

[@changjsc]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/rZLTg3uDZ7agr7c He did this one a few days ago

[@fatherglenn1]

@@changjsc Thank you

[@Adam-ue2ig]

Looking forward to this...I saw this Chan video critiqued by James White months ago.

[@castanedamusic1578]

I love being able to hear a critique of a view without snarky, sarcastic comments about the person being critiqued. More Protestant KZbinrs-ahem-should follow suit. There is often so little charity in tone when having these discussions.

[@MrMikemcmillan]

Kinda a snarky sarcastic comment...ahem...glass houses?

[@nephoone3325]

You spoke the truth about making any one view (even real presence) an article of faith. RC Sproul has a sermon on the tyranny of the weaker brother that is very helpful.

[@pujiyesus]

Can't wait!

[@TruthUnites]

hope you enjoy!

[@guest8486]

So much of this video is praiseworthy, and kudos to Dr. Ortlund for continuing to make the case for real presence in the Protestant tradition. It’s a much needed point of unity between Catholics and Protestants that has faded over time. I am now a Roman Catholic, but I grew up Baptist and then became Presbyterian later on. I have to say that while it’s true Zwingli didn’t “win the day” in the 16 century, his memorialist view has certainly taken the crown in contemporary Protestantism for the most part. I am aware of the resourcememt movements to reclaim Calvin’s teaching on the Eucharist, but I don’t know of any churches that have jumped on board. These efforts to reclaim a high view of the Eucharist don’t seem tenable. My own personal experience is that the rejection of real presence isn’t endemic to just “low-church evangelicalism”, unless we are willing to say that a vast majority of Protestant churches across denominations are “low-church evangelical.” And I fear that may be the case.

[@rogertrinidad4515]

Thank you very much!!!

[@TruthUnites]

glad it was helpful!

[@windyacres]

Thank you!

[@jamestrotter3162]

The real presence in the Eucharist is a very Biblical view.

[@solideogloriaapologetics8901]

There is a difference between real presence and transubstantiation

[@jamestrotter3162]

@@solideogloriaapologetics8901 I agree, based on 1st Corinthians 11:23-28.

[@TheLevitavi]

It doesn't make sense.

[@edwinnunez7538]

Good thing no one’s disagreeing with that lol. We’re disagreeing with the abomination of the Popish Mass

[@axolotl5327]

Enlightening. Thank you.

[@josueinhan8436]

O seu vídeo é um alento, meu irmão Gavin Ortlund! Como eu gostaria de que mais Católicos e Protestantes o assistissem!

[@varnoshaouphskamania2159]

obrigado

[@joshuabissey]

I would like to ask proponents of "real presence" how Christ's spiritual presence is less "real" than his physical presence. Also, why do they speak of a memorial or symbolic understanding of the Eucharist as something to be scoffed at? Is Christmas only meaningful if Christ physically appears as an infant in our manger scenes?

[@mitchellscott1843]

Interesting video. I'd be curious when and where and why the Eucharist began to diminish in importance within Evangelical Protestantism?

[@simplyme833]

There are three perspectives of Eucharist in the Evangelical Church, which came out of the pandemic: 1. Communion is both communal and personal, so you could take communion in the form of bread and fruit of the vine (wine or unfermented grape juice) at home as a faithful memorial, 2. Like no. 1 but gives leeway in form, like use of any liquid, instead of fruit of the vine, 3. Communion is a communal ordinance that involves the physical church with a physical institution. Surprisingly, the latter is common in the lowest of the Low Church type of Evangelical congregations for some reason.

[@bridgetgolubinski]

Wow I actually had a misconception on this issue as a Protestant

[@bjw8806]

While I understand the need to clear up in the final point about the center of worship argument, Only a handful of Protestants subscribe to the Eucharist as the focal point of worship and participation is weekly. Anglicans, Moravians, Methodists, Lutherans, high church Presbyterians and some other I may have missed . The rest are focused on the sermon and pulpit only. I think this may also be a deviation

[@albinoadrianocordeiro9929]

I only had the wine once (at my wedding). That bugged me for a long time because Jesus said we need to have both body and blood, however, I noticed a common "theme" in all Eucharistic miracles I read about: the bread bleeds! What I take from that is that God is letting us know that His blood is also in the bread.

[@bmide1110]

I appreciate and sympathize with this video. But I think it is worth emphasizing the fact that modern evangelicalism has drifted so far away from a Lutheran/Calvinist view towards a Zwinglian view that we should not at all be surprised that Chan and others don’t realize that the real presence is a part of our Protestant heritage. I was raised doctrinally in the YRR/TGC/etc. movement, and never once did I hear anything from it that would lead me to even question a memorialist view. The one exception might be the more Presbyterian teachers who would call the Lord’s Supper “a means of grace” that “strengthens the faith of the believer.” But what’s unique or special about that? Watching the passion of the Christ or listening to a John Piper sermon jam are means of grace that strengthen the faith of the believer. During my time in the YRR movement, I probably would have called the latter more effective than communion at doing that! And the fact that Chan, a LEADER in that movement would not hear a more powerful view of the Eucharist until he started interacting with non-evangelicals just shows how deeply entrenched memorialism was and is. And this is in a reformed movement after all, one heavily reverent of Calvin. It was not until I started drawing theological sustenance from elsewhere (Anglican, Lutheran, and non-Protestant traditions) that I encountered a higher view of the sacraments. And this is the case for so many evangelicals (Chan among them). I say all this to say that we should not be surprised that evangelicals think the real presence is a Catholic thing; we evangelicals have sold our sacramental birthright for a bowl of memorialist porridge. No one even remembers the treasures that our forefathers once treasured.

[@jmschmitten]

This. This this this. It’s completly beside the point to respond to criticisms of US Protestantism with “but Luther said…”. You have to think we’re having this debate in the 16th century to focus so exclusively on that.

[@josueinhan8436]

I think it's time to raise this debate once again

[@doubtingthomas9117]

I can totally relate to this. I grew up southern Baptist and thus had the standard Zwinglian view which is so prevalent among the dominant strands of contemporary evangelicalism. However when started revisiting passages like John 6 and 1Corinthians 10 and 11 in light of reading the early church fathers on the subject, I became convinced that the ‘real presence’ in the Eucharist was correct. Naturally I started investigating the RCC and EOC (especially the latter) before finally landing in traditional Anglicanism about 15 years ago.

[@nathanmagnuson2589]

Out of all the reformers, Zwingli is surely the worst imo

[@jilesherron]

100% agree.

[@NoahBradon]

I respect the nuance you’re bringing to this, and I certainly acknowledge that the majority of the original Reformers believed in the Real Presence in some form or another. That said, the fact remains that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have always officially held to the Real Presence, and they continue to uphold the doctrine. While Chan’s specific objections may suffer from hyperbole and need more historical context, the lack of emphasis on the Real Presence today - regardless of how it’s philosophically articulated - should concern Protestants deeply. It’s not really fair for a modern-day Baptist to point to Luther and say “see, that’s the best of what we believe,” without addressing the lack of unity between Baptists and Lutherans. I’m tired so forgive me if that’s not clear enough, but basically I agree there’s a historical distinction between the Reformers and the modern Reformed churches … but that doesn’t diminish the larger concern: if anything, it highlights the lack of internal consistency.

[@WhiteBraveheart1]

The early Christian Church did believe in the Real Presence of Jesus (physically). We know this, because early critics of the faith kept denouncing them as "cannibals," and the evidence of Jesus physically being present in the Eucharist is overwhelming: both in the Church Fathers and in Scripture. Jesus even tells us to "gnaw," on his Body. God Bless.

[@DavidAzua]

Justin Martyr lost his head defending the Holy Eucharist around 150 AD

[@WhiteBraveheart1]

@@DavidAzua A.D. God bless

[@DavidAzua]

@@WhiteBraveheart1 thx

[@andrewlawson7388]

Isn't it possible (even likely) that pagans would uncharitably misinterpret Christian language about receiving the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist as referring to physical body and blood? The same way they misinterpret expressions of love for their "brothers and sisters" as incest?

[@DavidAzua]

@@andrewlawson7388 imagine you've been indoctrinated into a worldly religion that emphasised personal spiritual knowledge over the orthodox teachings, traditions, and authority of the church. Then realize you are the person Jesus is referring to in John 6:66. I say this to encourage you to leave the warm milk of protestant ideas and start eating meat... spiritually speaking that is. Peace be with you.

[@padraicbrown6718]

Another great video! 1. I did know that Luther affirms the Real Presence and that (many?) Lutherans also believe this until today! I think Anglicans do as well. Of course, this is a good thing! It demonstrates that Truth can be found everywhere. And also that the Protestant revolution did not destroy the faith entirely. Naturally, there is a problem: Protestants can share the belief in Real Presence along with the Catholics and the Orthodox, but it is an absolute tragedy that what they receive in their churches is not actually what they believe in. They're actually receiving unconsecrated bread and wine. This is sad. This is because the revolutionaries did away with the priesthood and the ability for ministers to actually confect the Eucharist. This is why no Protestant may ever partake of the Eucharist in a Catholic or Orthodox liturgy --- even if they believe in the Real Presence. The fact that they are disconnected from unity within the Church is a rupture that even the holiest and most sincere of high church Anglicans can't overcome. Of course, the question here becomes: if you truly believe that Christ is fully present, why isn't your conscience captive to the word of God? It is also why Catholics can never participate in the sacrament even in open communion denominations that profess belief in the Real Presence. Simply because there is nothing present apart from bread and wine. 2. I think the take away on Francis's point is that, while there certainly were differences of opinion and debates and disagreements, the fact remains that the Church teaches Real Presence within the context of liturgy confected by the priesthood in apostolic succession. And that this understanding was normative all the way back, even if in acorn form rather than oak tree form. In other words, we can disagree and we can debate, but when the Church says "no, that is not the faith," we have a duty to stand down and accept what she teaches. To do otherwise is to pull a Luther and break unity with Church, going off and forming our own sect or denomination. 3. I think it's clear that Luther at least, among the revolutionaries, did not necessarily downplay the Eucharist. I've heard some other ministers who seem to share a fairly high understanding of what the Eucharist is. However, it is clear that many forms of Protestantism do in fact replace the sacrificial altar with the pulpit, and ALL Protestants (Anglicans included) deprive the laity of the true sacrament by sundering their denominations from the priesthood. As regards priests withholding the precious blood, and the laity not taking both kinds, those were in need of reform. And the Church has in fact reformed. The revolutionaries did not "reform" anything however. They went in the opposite direction. Here is where we (Protestants as well as Catholics) really need to take your position at face value, about studying and accepting what a particular tradition actually is. The Church, whether in response to Protestant "reformers" or Catholic reformers (keep in mind that "The Reformation" is nothing new in the history of the Church --- reform has been a constant struggle since the beginning of Church history), certainly changed its practice. Catholics, East and West, can take Eucharist in both kinds (in the Eastern tradition, the bread is intincted, so you get both at the same time, while in the West it is offered separately; but Western Catholics don't have to. We understand that Christ is not "divided". He is fully and truly present --- body, blood, soul, divinity --- in every single particle of consecrated bread and every single discernable drop of wine. The distinctions between Catholic and Orthodox are thus matters of traditional practice more than theology or dogma.

[@Jokl92]

Could you do a video or recommend resources concering what it means that he is 'present'? Because after all he is omnipresent... So what does that mean that he is 'present' in the lords supper?

[@TruthUnites]

could be a great follow-up, will think on it....

[@killianmiller6107]

It seems to me that talking about the omnipresence of God is something slightly different than the real presence of Jesus. Omnipresence refers to God not being bound by space (but the interesting paradox was how he entered into space through incarnation and “bound” himself to it). Perhaps in the same way Jesus was really present on earth, so too is Jesus really present under the species of bread and wine. This is what we mean by “body, blood, soul, and divinity.”

[@mynameis......23]

Beautiful

[@danielklassen1513]

Let's have a shout out for Peter Martyr Vermigli, who played a major role in shaping the Reformed doctrine of the Lord's Supper. He often gets overlooked in these discussions. Calvin said "The whole doctrine of the Eucharist was crowned by Peter Martyr, who left nothing more to be done."

[@TruthUnites]

good call! I need to read him more on this.

[@matthewbroderick8756]

Daniel, " He carried His own BODY in His hands and gave it to them. We do not sin in Adoring it." ( Augustine, Explaining the Psalms, bread of Angels).. "The consecrated food BECOMES the Flesh of the INCARNATE Jesus. ", ( Justin Martyr, first Apology). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink

[@kessler19]

Hi Gavin, thanks for this explanatory vid! I learned a lot about the Eucharist and the Protestant's view of it here. However, keen to understand too (and to give credit to Francis Chan for bringing this up for discussion) more on why Chan talked about the Zwinglian view of the eucharist view as such- 1. What did Zwingli say and do, and how did his views influenced us, impacted us coming into its present day form of low church 'non-real presence' forms of liturgies and traditions? 2. Are these (the low church population) also the majority or minority of today's evangelical body? Given that Francis Chan brought this up and being ex-founder of a megachurch sends the message that this view could be large in numbers and representative of a majority of evangelicals today, which understandably underscores Chan's points to reform such an understanding.

[@CharlesSeraphDrums]

This is really interesting. From this, I see that at least on surface level, Orthodox and Protestants agree way more on this central topic. And indeed, it doesn’t seem to be a point of contention when Patriarch Jeremiah responded to the Augsburg Confession. Really his issue was with Lutherans for some wild-eyed reason accepting the Filioque.

[@johnathanrhoades7751]

Yup. Though today the vast majority of Protestants don't believe in true presence...

[@toomanymarys7355]

RCC was wrong about filioque, and it led to a number of massive downstream errors. In the filioque is the rejection that God has activities that are proper to himself and not creations. The assertion that God's grace is created and not proper to himself is the root of almost all RCC doctrinal errors.

[@mr.caleblynn9246]

Please do a video on this bohemian reformation!

[@aaronbritton685]

Thanks Gavin...lots of good clarity here. I would also say that Zwingli is kind of a whipping boy on this issue in the neo-reformed world. I would say it's not such a huge cavern between "memorial" and "spiritual presence" as some make it out to be. Sure, Zwingli is the practice of many evangelical churches, but most evangelical communion services that I've been a part of are bathed in prayer, ceremony, and solemnity....which is another way to say, "recognition and participation in God's spiritual presence in that moment". So, just because "real presence" might be formally or neglectfully rejected doesn't mean those aren't "Spiritual" moments where the Evangelical church in question isn't spiritually encountering God in the supper. I just think we should see how Zwingli is applied in most cases before we throw him out.

[@TruthUnites]

Great comment Aaron, and I totally agree. Zwinglian views are often treated unfairly. Also, Zwingli's view itself is somewhat nuanced. Thanks.

[@aaronbritton685]

@@TruthUnites Thanks Gavin. I think it would be helpful to have a modern Protestant discussion on this issue, perhaps focusing less on historical categories...just so we could see how modern practice reflects belief, etc...I think Chan is talking about the "once a month" "do it if you want to" kind of method, which I've definitely been a part of as well. But, I also see a lot of new practice, like weekly participation, and guided prayer during the Supper, which I think is mostly positive.

[@OrthodoxInquirer]

I went to a neighbor's Church of Christ and a woman prayed over the body. She was part of the band. She used none of the words of Christ, then when a man prayed over the blood, at least he said, "this is the cup of the new covenant...". The communion was supposed to be picked up by people ahead of time as you entered. It was in a plastic sandwich baggie. I once asked my Baptist pastor about communion being healing and he said, "It's just a cracker." I'll just leave it there.

[@kazager11]

8:55 The heretics he was referring to denied Christ had an actual body. He seems to be saying that it doesn't make sense to celebrate the eucharist if you deny Christ had a body & blood.

[@actsapologist1991]

That was a good overview.

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks! It's great to find points of agreement now and again! :)

[@r.a.panimefan2109]

Hey im new to really studing bible at 30. Always believed but wasnt serious. Studing the bible hermaneutic so on deffinatly new passion. But on the bread and wine. I know in the desert he said that man shall not live on bread alone but on the word of god. And in the wondering the isrealites were fed with mana Also christ is often refered to as the tree or the living water right. So could this be that he was saying that he is the mana he is the bread. Could it be that he was refering at that level of euphemism

[@thomasthellamas9886]

I suspect so. This is to say that John 6 and the “real flesh” talk is not referring to the Eucharist.

[@r.a.panimefan2109]

@thomasthellamas9886 very true. Granted eucharist (thanksgiving) That's all it technically means. So when those like polycarp say it. It's quite different then what catholics teach.

[@thomasthellamas9886]

@@r.a.panimefan2109 Perhaps. I’d have to go back and read all the ante Nicene fathers looking for the use of the word to really be informed. I do think some kind of real presence is found in scripture and in church history though.

[@jonhilderbrand4615]

The presence of the body and flesh of Christ is "real," but not "literal." Is that a way to put it? Thanks!

[@diannecabrejas4413]

Gracias por poner subtítulos en español! Fue muy claro y consistente con la Biblia y la Tradición... lo mejor que he visto hoy de parte de un protestante hacia el tema; y soy protestante.

[@shihyuchu6753]

ZERO instances of worship of the Eucharist in the entire Bible

[@koppite9600]

Wabt in sacred tradition?

[@flyswatter6470]

Matthew 28;16 "Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” Luke 24: 30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. 32 They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?” 33 They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together 34 and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.” 35 Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread." They worshipped HIM. He said, "This is my body." I will worship His body, just as Paul and his followers did. 1 Corinthians 11: 27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28Each one must examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.… Can you sin against a metaphor? a symbol? If Jesus is God, and the bread is the body of Jesus, why wouldn't you worship it? What do you worship?

[@Coastie4]

When you quote Lurher, you should include the stage in his deformation. He said loads of positive things about Catholic beliefs that he later rejected.

[@jaysonb.6669]

He also said loads of initial positive things about the Jews too...Which he later rejected. I put my only faith in Jesus Christ.

[@danielreyes6980]

Hello Dr. Ortlund, thank you for these videos! I find myself in a theological limbo right now after being Southern Baptist for a number of years. I felt this video was specifically talking to me because the Eucharist is the most important issue for me. I am currently leaning Catholic, but I have said that I could remain Protestant as a Lutheran. With that being said, I would love to hear your thoughts on the Baptist view of the Lord's Supper and if it has any merit in history. I loved your thoughts on Luther and Calvin, but I was left wanting to hear more on Zwingli so I could maybe affirm my former tradition. It would be an honor to hear back from you!

[@TruthUnites]

Hey Daniel, good to hear from you! Two small thoughts: (1) it is logically possible (though not always confessionally possible) to be a Baptist and affirm real presence. I do. (2) The Zwinglian view actually has some nuances that make it something more than a mere human activity; i.e., lots of memorialists believe that God is granting grace in a special way through the Supper, even if not sacramentally present. Does this help at all? May God guide you and bless you.

[@danielreyes6980]

@@TruthUnites That did help! I look forward to seeing more of your videos!

[@bjw8806]

@@danielreyes6980 hey man.often Zwingli’s final view and thoughts are left out of the conversation. He ends up with a view similar to Anglican and Calvinist. So this may be a step in remaining faithful to Zwingli’s view but in its fullness. This helped me and my local church a lot Near the end of his life Zwingli summarized his understanding of the Eucharist in a confession sent to King Francis I, saying:[19] "We believe that Christ is truly present in the Lord’s Supper; yea, we believe that there is no communion without the presence of Christ. This is the proof: 'Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them' (Matt. 18:20). How much more is he present where the whole congregation is assembled to his honor! But that his body is literally eaten is far from the truth and the nature of faith. It is contrary to the truth, because he himself says: 'I am no more in the world' (John 17:11), and 'The flesh profiteth nothing' (John 6:63), that is to eat, as the Jews then believed and the Papists still believe. It is contrary to the nature of faith (I mean the holy and true faith), because faith embraces love, fear of God, and reverence, which abhor such carnal and gross eating, as much as any one would shrink from eating his beloved son.… We believe that the true body of Christ is eaten in the communion in a sacramental and spiritual manner by the religious, believing, and pious heart (as also St. Chrysostom taught). And this is in brief the substance of what we maintain in this controversy, and what not we, but the truth itself teaches."

[@matthewbroderick8756]

Daniel, I hope you are doing well. Prayers for you on your journey! "He carried His own BODY in His hands and gave it to them. We do not sin in Adoring it", ( Augustine, Explaining the Psalms, bread of Angels). " The consecrated food BECOMES the Flesh of the incarnate Jesus ", ( Justin Martyr, first Apology). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink

[@KayElayempea]

@@TruthUnites Thanks for making this video. I have always thought that "this is My Body... this is My Blood" was more than memorial. But my home church's the view is memorial. Recently I have been reflecting on whether this mismatch is a problem.

[@jacoballen5108]

As a Pentecostal, I believe we need to bring back, preaching that it’s the actual flesh and blood. The problem with my denomination is it goes back to the days of prohibition.

[@ClassicalAnglican]

An Anglican here❤ Anglicanism teaches real presence of Christ in the Eucharist(consubstantiation) and Eucharistic sacrifice mentioned in Didache and St Justin Martyr

[@TheBlackToedOne]

Francis Chan has the perfect response to hearing something new: "Wow. I never heard that. That's something to consider". He didn't outright accept or reject it - he said he would consider it.

[@RomanPaganChurch]

This video was absolutely abysmal. The early church was so terrified of the gnostics that they overcorrected with the physical presence in the eucharist. Almost in every case in church history when the church tries to fight a perceived heresy, and ends up over correcting and leaves awake of new ones. This is no different because not only is John 6 clear that it's symbolic, John 4 says it's spiritual, John 7 says it's spiritual, and most importantly in Matthew 16, Jesus reminds his disciples that it was symbolic. Sometimes your attempt to try to make peace between the denominations leads you to be blind to the truth. At this point you're no different than Pope Francis double speaking and saying Luther was right, which he recently did.

[@peterw1177]

Luke 24:30-31 also speaks powerfully of his presence in the Eucharist. “And it happened that, while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it and gave it to them. WITH THAT their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight.” ……. LK: 24: 35 “Then the two recounted what had taken place on the way and how he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread.” When Pope Francis was still the Bishop of Buenos Aires in Argentina, he commissioned a scientific investigation of a Eucharistic miracle that happened in his Diocese. The study was done in the United States by competent scientists. God knows that for some, just like Thomas, they need more in order to believe. God responds to such people too.

[@jackiesheasby6677]

Not being a scholar, I would appreciate comment about these early writings, which DO seem to indicate the idea of symbolism? But if it be unlawful even to speak of this, and if for men to partake of the flesh of men is a thing most hateful and abominable, and more detestable than any other unlawful and unnatural food or act,” (Athenagoras 133-190 AD, On the Resurrection of the Dead, 8). ** “For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble.” (Augustine, 354-430 AD, Letter 98:9). ** “‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord,” (Augustine, 354-430 AD, On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24). ** “And He blessed the wine, saying, ‘Take, drink: this is my blood’ - the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word ‘shed for many, for the remission of sins’ - the holy stream of gladness.’” (Clement of Alexandria, 150-215 AD, The Instructor, 2:2). ** “Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: ‘Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,’ describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, (Clement of Alexandria, 150-215 AD, The Instructor, 1:6). ** For just as he, who was priest of the Gentiles, is not represented as offering outward sacrifices, but as blessing Abraham only with wine and bread, in exactly the same way our Lord and Saviour Himself first, and then all His priests among all nations, perform the spiritual sacrifice according to the customs of the Church, and with wine and bread darkly express the mysteries of His Body and saving Blood.” (Eusebius, 263-339 AD, Demonstratio Evangelica, 5:3). ** “For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body… to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body,” (Eusebius, 263-339 AD, Demonstratio Evangelica, 8:1). ** “…nor the bread by which he represents his own proper body, thus requiring in his very sacraments the ‘beggarly elements’ of the Creator,” (Tertullian, 155-220 AD, Against Marcion, 1:14).

[@jmschmitten]

To my favorite Protestant KZbin theologian: I feel guilty confessing that I’m running into a frustration that takes on a pattern that I can finally articulate. I would be grateful for your feedback. It seems you use the level of generality offered by the word “Protestant” in inconsistent ways to avoid addressing the most powerful criticisms of Protestantism. Let me be specific: at 8:01, you offer to stop equating Protestantism with modern American Evangelicalism. And that is something you have been doing in a lot of your videos, I’m starting to notice, you side-step what I am convinced (and you appear to be convinced of, manifestly) are the difficult-to-rebut theological objections to American evangelicalism. Let me explain why this has been frustrating for me, personally. The first point I’ll make via rhetorical question: Is it your views that modern evangelicals are NOT Protestant? If so, I would invite you to make a video making clear which of the offspring of Protestantism are and are not within your relatively broad view of “The Church.” At least taking such a stance will help those of us who find it unhelpful to respond to objections about unorthodox views of the Real Presence with “well, that’s not what Luther thought.” Fine, Gavin, but most English speaking Protestants are NOT Lutheran. And neither are you. And even self-identified Lutherans are not all high liturgy anymore. Most Protestants that exist, and that therefore we encounter, and therefore are taking to, do not accept the Real Presence. If you think I am mistaken, say so clearly but also say clearly who YOU mean by “Protestants.” Using the diversity of what the word “Protestant” also often results in, I don’t believe by intention, in your skirting your own positive case. Suppose you’ve convinced me that the Catholic Church isn’t The Church… well, there isn’t a Protestant Church. So what’s your positive case that there IS a 2,000 year-old church that has always existed and can now be found in an identifiable Protestant denomination, or collection of denominations. You are a Baptist pastor. That means you believe Methodists are wrong. That Luther was wrong. That Calvin was wrong. That the Presbyterians are wrong. That the Anglicans are wrong. Yet you defend an idea of “Protestantism” that cherry picks along them, whether intentionally or not. This comes up in particular in your video on relics. I watched the video three times, and wrote notes on the third viewing. Your thesis, as far as I can tell, was “the Catholics are wrong, and that’s about all I can say confidently.” (I’ll offer as bona fides that your video on icons did NOT suffer this shortcoming, and as a result I’ve been struggling mightily with the issue!) One charitable way of understanding your project is to avoid the theology of American evangelicalism being ascribed to all that is “Protestant.” That is a worthwhile project. But you don’t seem to want to really make distinctions among Protestantism in your public mission. My (sincerely loving, I swear it) loving challenge is this: (1) When you defend “Protestantism,” can you acknowledge the significance of the denominations that your defenses DO NOT COVER (and therefore implicitly condemn, for lack of a softer synonym at the moment)? If you can, doesn’t that mean you’re not fighting alleged caricatures, but you’re displeased that what is accurately called “Protestant” includes the views being criticized as what is taught AS ORTHODOXY? If your project is to exclude non-orthodox Protestants, it is not enough to say that when that level of generality is chosen by critics, that same level of generality can be defended by excluded what is within its tent. (2) suppose Catholics are wrong. Make the case, finally, that Baptists churches are RIGHT-ER. Their ecclesiology, their view on baptism, their emphasis on individual conscience, make them not just more right than Catholicism but more right than Protestants who (maybe) should not be thought as carrying that banner. I am, ultimately, frustrated at what feels like a rhetorical trick (I don’t believe you mean to do this, but it’s the effect) of taking criticisms that clearly apply to most Protestants that an American will actually encounter, and responding with “Well actually, Luther was with the orthodox and Catholic on this,” and thereby concluding that criticisms of 20th and 21st century of Protestant theology is just a caricature. Also, I love you, and please keep making videos.

[@jmschmitten]

If I could cut off a red herring: You may say, and rightly so, that most American Catholics also, empirically, do not believe in the Real Presence. However, our dogma is not bottom-up; as you know, that is not our ecclesiology. So we will agree “most American Catholics are WRONG,” by their own terms and views of authority. Here, my contention is that you obliquely avoid that the very defenses you offer against “caricatures” of Protestantism are inconsistent with the actual taught theology of the most prevalent forms of Protestant Christianity in the U.S.

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks for this, I can tell you have put a lot of thought into this response! Truly, I appreciate you engaging the videos, and I take your expressions of love and good-will as sincere. On the issue of rhetorical tricks or sidestepping: it is true that many of my views are making a case for a Protestant view generally, rather than a specific Protestant denomination. I don't understand why this would be a problem, though, any more than CS Lewis arguing for "mere Christianity". Granted, it does not settle what kind of Protestant you should be; but I don't think that means it's a rhetorical trick or something. It just means most of my videos have a more modest goal, and/or are responding to unfair criticism of "Protestantism." I think it's legitimate to point out differences between American evangelicals and historic Protestants because what is happening is people criticize American evangelical practices and then think they have thereby criticized "Protestantism." It's appropriate to point out that this is not fair. I don't see that as rhetorical side-stepping but simply a call for accuracy. When people say things like, "Protestants don't believe in real presence," it's legitimate to point out that this is unfair. (By the way, I think a lot more Protestants than you might imagine actually believe in real presence: it is fairly common in numerous traditions.) Think about it like this: if you are a Dominican, but you quote approvingly from Franciscans in your explication of monastic thought, are you "cherry-picking?" Not necessarily. You can appreciate the thought of people in a different group or tradition, even if you might disagree with them on particular points. There is a more basic thing you have in common under defense (monasticism). Similarly, though I disagree with Methodists or Lutherans on certain points, I see them as fundamentally very close to me theologically. I don't think it's fair to reduce my video on relics to "the Catholics are wrong, and that’s about all I can say confidently." I specifically said that relics can be used for teaching and inspiration, but not veneration, and that the normal practice for the bodies of deceased Christians should be burial. I gave a positive articulation of what SHOULD be done (and one that is fairly common among Protestants). The positive case for Protestantism being the best way to have continuity with the 2000 year-old church is something I have addressed in various videos, my debate with Father Patrick, and my book Theological Retrieval for Evangelicals. The claim is that the other major institutional churches have drifted from the beliefs of the early church and biblical teaching in certain areas (beliefs about Mary, tradition, papacy, venerating icons, etc.). Being a Protestant is an effort at reforming the one true church in light of the errors. All these traditions claim to be the ONE TRUE CHURCH; but we believe the true church is not restricted to institutional boundaries but is wherever Christ and his gospel and sacraments are bearing fruit by the Holy Spirit. It's a different way of thinking about the nature of the church altogether, so I realize this can be a struggle for each side to understand the other. Let me know if I can clarify anything on this. I think it's certainly fair that more would need to be said to establish all of my specific convictions. That is not really the goal of my KZbin channel, but I am happy to talk about them as well. You name the issue, and I will give you my "take" on it. That way you can know my motive is not to sidestep anything. Ask me anything. Does this help at all?

[@jmschmitten]

@@TruthUnites I can agree with your points only as far as they go on the generality problem (let me set aside my criticism of the case in the relic video, which I don’t think is apropos of that topic): Making characterizations at the level of generality of “Protestantism” is unrigorous and often unhelpful because there is maximal diversity of theological views within that category. However, I am arguing that the same is true of defenses at that level of generality, and there are major implications to choosing that level of defense. Namely, the character of your defense will exclude major, perhaps most, perhaps the most common, perhaps the most influential, Protestant denominations in the U.S. (Depending on the particular issue.) I’ll put the point another way in two aphorisms, the second of which is an accurate statement at the level of generality you have chosen: (1) If critics of Protestantism must be rigorous in which of the (innumerable, and with non-denominational churches, limitless) variations of authoritative teaching among Protestant churches, so too must learned defenders such as you acknowledge that the particular defenses you tend to choose in your videos will confirm those criticisms and condemn denominations (implicitly) for whom your arguments are inapposite. If I am wrong in that, I believe you are also wrong to call those criticisms, as you are want to do, “caricatures,” and perhaps we all have to live with the rhetorical imprecision afforded by the word “Protestant,” (2) the only Christians churches that TEACH that the the Lord’s Supper is not something of a kind that one could describe (in bad faith but with some technical accuracy) as “cannibalism” are Protestants. Only Protestants reach the symbolic view. And only Protestants teach an attenuated view of the presence that would make cannibalism criticisms awkward (ie Calvin). Is that a caricature? If not… wouldn’t critics have MORE reason to choose the “unhelpful” level of generality than you choose in your defense? I should reiterate: no part of me believes you are even a little but disingenuous. Rather, I’m trying to make explicit the limits of your defense of the modern, usually evangelical, Protestant churches, which are the greatest font of criticism in my experience for Catholics and orthodox. But if you really want to carve them out, I’d turn your crosshairs around. If they are wrong, then turn your gaze to these heretics who took your venerated category (“Protestant”) and are embarrassing you with it.

[@TruthUnites]

@@jmschmitten Sorry, I'm really not following this latest response. I've read it several times and am having a tough time identifying what your actual concern is. I'll try to read it over again later and see if I can make more sense from it. Thanks again.

[@TruthUnites]

one brief point that might help: when a critic says, "Protestants don't believe in real presence," I would argue it is the CRITIC who is committing a generality problem. It's not the one responding seeking to show the nuances.

[@hmommy3]

Gavin, thank you for your gentle kindness to us all. You mentioned that another video would address the ante-Nicene church fathers’ views on transubstantiation. That is certainly very important. More important, surely, than the views of the larger figures of the Reformation, since the people walking with the apostles have The Uniting Truths in their infancy..! Barnabas would be a super important one, and his entire teaching letter is very clear on typology and symbolic practices. More: Irenaeus, AD 178 Fragment 37 - Wine and bread are counterparts. They invoke the Holy Spirit. This is done for a memorial [remembrance] to the Lord. Edited to add: Ken Johnson is a great resource for relevant quick quotes from the earliest fathers on the doctrines that divide the Body. See “Ancient Church Fathers”.

[@Durnyful]

The trouble is that vast swathes of evangelicals have utterly lost the original meaning of the eucharist - the central act of worship. Surely the majority of protestant churches? It's not actually much use quoting individual church fathers, its the conclusions drawn at the ecumenical councils while the church was in unity that count, where they sifted the various views of the fathers. Hence Origen was condemned for his heretical views as an example. Where is the eastern church in any of this discussion? The western church has progressively deserted the dogmas of the ecumenical councils, starting with the alteration of the creed. The corruption became such that the reformers were between a rock & a hard place. The sad thing now that's obvious in retropect is that the reformation has led to an absolute plethora of differing views all purporting to be true Christianity and based entirely on scripture (while obviously being based on their particular interpretation of scripture). It was always destined to be thus from its inception since it is effectively subjective.

[@leopacani6375]

Hi Gavin, great work as usual. Just wanted to touch a little on the Eucharist, John 6 . On verses 60-63 Jesus drops a bomb on the idea of literal meaning of eat my flesh and drink my blood. Verse 63 says; " It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life" That turns the catholic argument on its head. Actually you can make the case against their interpretation from verse 58 as well. The Israelites ate the bread (literal/physical bread) that came down from heaven and died, but Jesus says, " He who eats this bread(the new bread that Jesus is offering us) will live forever" Of course this doesn't mean we should dispute over it as Romans 14; 1-12 teaches us but the problem is from the other side's perspective, if you don't believe their interpretation you are out and you can't be part of their church and they of course put so much emphasis on this. Having said that, I do believe that a lot of protestants need to cool off with the accusations they throw at Roman Catholics. Anyway, you may have well made these points yourself in the past but If you haven't it might be something that you think it's worth pointing out to the army of the catholic ( tap dancers 🙂) apologists that you end up debating. God bless.

[@alexjurado6029]

Whenever Dr. Ortlund discusses Catholicism/Orthodoxy vs. Protestantism, he seems to always fall back on the idea of high-church protestantism vs. low-church Protestantism. And in this particular video he even implies that low church traditions are the “worst of Protestantism.” Does he believe that low-church traditions are wrong? And if so, would that mean that he would believe that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are more correct than these low-church Protestant traditions? What he argues seems to lead to the conclusion that MOST of Protestantism is false because most of Protestantism is what he would call a low-church tradition. Also, would his logic indicate that his own Baptist tradition is inferior to more high-Church Protestant traditions like Lutheranism and Anglicanism? Not trying to caricature or misrepresent his argumentation, just trying to carry it out to its terminal logical conclusion.

[@lornadoone8887]

I remember my Conservative Baptist pastor prefacing communion with the words, “This is not mystical, this is not magical”….and then he would insert the word “represents” into the mouth of Christ in the words of institution, which do not appear in the original text. It was in that moment when the teaching that had been implicit in “The Lord’s Supper” as I’d experienced it in the Evangelical churches of my adult Christian life was made explicit that it occurred to me to ask myself, “Then what really is the point?” Later I realized I didn’t need to be united in the act of communion with my own mental reflections “remembrance” about Christ’s death and resurrection. Being united to my own mental state and strivings is death. I need to be united with Christ Himself! That was about 25 years ago. I’ve been Orthodox for over a decade and a half and no regrets….

[@RomanPaganChurch]

1:15 if you simply read the whole chapter, john chapter 6, Jesus makes it clear that the flesh is symbolic

[@Mygoalwogel]

What's your definition or range of acceptable definitions for koinonia?

[@RomanPaganChurch]

@@Mygoalwogel well that's a complicated question given that you can either mean basic fellowship, or a communion service. Wherever two or three Gather in his name, Jesus is there, and that is fellowship. As for remembrance of Jesus's victory over death giving us salvation, that has to parallel what Melchizedek did for abraham, what Moses did for the israelites, and what Jesus did for all of us.... it's the same story told three times... and so we come together and celebrate it as such with Bread and "Wine."

[@Mygoalwogel]

@@RomanPaganChurch You named "fellowship", "communion" and "remembrance" as acceptable translations of koinonia. Is this correct? I challenge "remembrance." Koinonia appears 19 times in the NT. Biblehub hosts 22 English translations. None use "remembrance" for koinonia in any of the 19 appearances.

[@RomanPaganChurch]

@@Mygoalwogel don't be dense, the bread wine ceremony is in remembrance as Jesus declared it. I gave you the OT examples of it. It is also tied to the 4th commandment, since the bread wine symbology is related to the Passover, also called the "sabbaths of sabbaths" by the Jewish people, and confirmed by Jesus in John 6, when he mentions the bread being used to establish a Sabbath habit before the book of law was written. Don't be disingenuous.

[@Mygoalwogel]

@@RomanPaganChurch Please don't put words in my mouth. I did not claim anything about the Lord's Supper. 1. I asked you for a range of definitions for koinonia. 2. I objected to "remembrance" as a translation of koinonia. Now, do you agree that "fellowship," and "communion" are acceptable translations of the word koinonia and that "remembrance" is a different word?

[@CatholicaTV]

Appreciated your video and charitable way of communicating. Forgive me for being picky, but I wish though you had shared why the Roman Catholic Church did not offer the Sacrament under both kinds during the Middle Ages. I sort of sympathize with your take that it was a negative thing, but you seemed to paint it as an arbitrary abuse that the reformers had to save the laity from. I'd encourage people to read the Council of Trent, Session 21 to get a better general understanding of why that was the case. Thanks for the video, I also appreciate you can't nuance everything in just a short time! Blessings.

[@benryangarcia]

I'm having trouble understanding the point of this video. You seem to be supporting Chan's views of real presence (or at least you understand where he's coming from)... but then you make it about the Catholic Church... but then you say it's not about the Catholic church because a lot of protestants hold to real presence already... But then I'm wondering why a "low-church evangelical" Baptist is making a video like this is the first place, who I would have thought to be a memorialist. I guess what you're getting at is that people often choose a denomination based on their conclusions concerning this doctrine. But you don't want people to be Catholic so you're telling them it's okay to be Protestant and believe in real presence? Protestant evangelicals are by no means a small makeup of Christianity (especially in America), and largely, they are memorialists. I think what Francis Chan was saying (if the purpose of this video was to respond to him) is that evangelicals (like himself) should adopt the view that the Lord's supper is more than a symbol. I don't think he was saying "let's all become Catholic".

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. The main point of the video is to encourage knowledge of church history.

[@reddhedds]

Are you going to do a wine vs grape juice video?

[@3joez3]

Awesome! Thank you for the information. My questions for you, now that 500 years of experimentation have passed, does the critique that the reformers have hold water against the Catholic Church today? Also, given the way that the reformers decided to view the Eucharist, which tradition upheld the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist better? Seems to me that most Protestants do not believe how the reformers believed it. Same thing with immaculate Mary. A teaching Luther accepted, this has been basically lost upon all Protestants. So what was the right move?

[@mj6493]

It should be noted that the Catholic Church has made some changes more along the lines of the reformers. For example, offering the elements in both kinds.

[@angelvalentinmojica6967]

and that is the main problem with protestantism. people are leaving historical protestant churches for these low evangelical churches that dont believe in the real presence.

[@toomanymarys7355]

The RCC's view of the eucharist creating little pieces of grace to cover little pieces of sin is every bit as blasphemous as it ever was.

[@samruggiero1778]

There seems have have been a doctrinal creep away from the reformers beliefs... it got even worse in the 1800s. A bit like a marriage in trouble instead of working things out with the reformers, a divorce happened with many subsequent relationships and offsprings leading to a broken family.

[@Ericviking2019]

Dr ortlund is one of the most articulate apologists I have ever found, love his videos. I am curious about how often the traditional Protestant denominations receive communion in their services? Daily, weekly, monthly?

[@mj6493]

As a Lutheran, I receive communion weekly, but that is not the case at all Lutheran churches.

[@doubtingthomas9117]

In my Anglican Church we have communion just about every week as well.

[@chrisharrelson178]

Ignatius was taught by the apostle John. There is a reason why he had such a "strong emphasis" on the Eucharist being the flesh of our Lord. The reason is because he got it straight from the Apostles. This a deep mystery not apparent to the senses so of course over centuries people are going to have doubts. That's why the church has had to clarify its teaching. If that's not enough the Eucharistic miracles should convince you. All over the world the consecrated bread has started bleeding and turned to flesh. These have been tested by scientist and the blood found to have white blood cells! Living cells! The flesh tested by cardiologists found to be inner heart tissue. This isn't some kooky hoax. These are well documented, tested, and confirmed miracles.