The Lord’s Supper Explained: Real Presence, Symbolic Meal, or Spiritual Mystery?: täielik transkriptsioon

00:04:52.531 --> 00:04:54.353 In John 11, 12,. 00:04:54.353 --> 00:04:59.069 The disciples said to him Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover. 00:04:59.069 --> 00:05:05.492 Obviously it kind of went over their heads that he was speaking of Lazarus being dead, not just asleep. 00:05:07.002 --> 00:05:18.213 So I know that that was repetitive and that was kind of redundant, but I just wanted to lay the foundation that this is something that you can see is a repeated pattern in the Gospels. 00:05:18.213 --> 00:05:24.252 So with that established, we have to ask ourselves as to why, like why, this happens. 00:05:24.252 --> 00:05:29.221 We have to ask ourselves as to why, like why, this happens. 00:05:29.221 --> 00:05:31.365 And that leads us into talking about the figurative language in which Christ speaks. 00:05:32.266 --> 00:05:42.345 Now there are seven different, like main figurative types of speech that Christ engages in in the New Testament and that's going to be metaphor. 00:05:42.345 --> 00:05:49.009 And that's going to be metaphor simile, parable, hyperbole, symbolism, synecdoche and metonymy. 00:05:49.009 --> 00:05:58.216 Now, out of those seven, we're going to focus a little bit more on hyperbole and symbolism and maybe metonymy is probably going to be the biggest one. 00:05:58.216 --> 00:06:12.946 Now, it's funny to me how I'm studying this and I come across, like you really start to see all the different types of figurative language, even though, like I, even though I knew that there were figures of speech, I didn't really know what, how to categorize them. 00:06:12.946 --> 00:06:17.622 So, are you familiar with most of those, um, most of those terms? 00:06:18.043 --> 00:06:22.920 yeah, yeah, and I know um, especially in old testament language a lot of times. 00:06:22.920 --> 00:06:27.125 Yeah, this is very relevant, like each one of the examples you gave. 00:06:27.125 --> 00:06:32.149 All of these are just all over the place with the Old Testament too. 00:06:32.149 --> 00:06:36.014 So, yeah, it's not uncommon going into the New Testament, especially with Jesus. 00:06:36.014 --> 00:06:37.637 So, like you said, yeah, yeah. 00:06:41.379 --> 00:07:05.271 So I think it's important to kind of figure out in which way Christ is speaking because, obviously, him being God, god, he's going to be the master of language and the way that he communicates things is just amazing, because there's so many different ways in which he can communicate uh, some of his um, I mean god's law, just um, obviously, with the parables and about the kingdom. 00:07:05.271 --> 00:07:15.533 There's just so many different ways in which he expresses himself and it's like a different rhetorical devices that serve specific purposes. 00:07:15.533 --> 00:07:24.673 So I wanted to give some examples of metonymy, since that's where we're going to kind of head in a direction of later on. 00:07:24.673 --> 00:07:27.064 Metonymy, since that's where we're going to kind of head in

a direction of later on. 00:07:27.064 --> 00:07:30.610 But just at the outset I wanted to bring up a biblical example to start out. 00:07:31.552 --> 00:07:37.711 Um, when jesus mentions, you know, moses and the prophets, it's usually represents the whole of the old testament scriptures. 00:07:37.711 --> 00:07:49.860 That is a form of metonymy, and some other examples that are not biblical are suits, a metonym for business people, sword metonym for conflict or violence. 00:07:49.860 --> 00:07:58.653 So you get the idea that it's usually one term that's either related to or to stand in place of something else. 00:07:58.653 --> 00:07:59.055 I think. 00:07:59.235 --> 00:08:09.375 Yeah, and when it's declared, the term is familiar with people in certain cultures and people groups and all that. 00:08:09.375 --> 00:08:16.769 So when they hear that they just know automatically, they're like, oh, it's related to this, like you said, with suits a metonym for business people. 00:08:16.769 --> 00:08:26.069 You and I both work pretty corporate office jobs right now and if we hear, oh, the big suits are coming in today, we're like, oh, we know who that is, you know. 00:08:26.069 --> 00:08:26.571 Yeah. 00:08:26.571 --> 00:08:27.353 Yeah, we're like what's the? 00:08:27.353 --> 00:08:30.810 The quote unquote important people, right, the bigger guys they're coming in? 00:08:30.850 --> 00:08:32.884 Yeah, or the clients or corporate. 00:08:32.884 --> 00:08:33.788 Yeah, yeah, for sure. 00:08:33.788 --> 00:08:35.211 Yeah, yeah, definitely. 00:08:35.211 --> 00:08:44.952 So, with that being said, I wanted to jump next to eating and drinking in the scriptures and what that oftentimes represents. 00:08:44.952 --> 00:08:50.621 I'm going to make the point. 00:08:50.621 --> 00:09:01.693 Well, I'm trying to make the point that eating and drinking is often a sign of believing and internalizing God's word, and I want to establish that by going through both some Old Testament and New Testament examples. 00:09:01.693 --> 00:09:06.562 So if you wouldn't mind just kind of reading the Old Testament examples, for me, that'd be great. 00:09:07.124 --> 00:09:07.304 Sure. 00:09:07.304 --> 00:09:11.754 First one is Psalm 119, verse 103. 00:09:11.754 --> 00:09:18.806 How sweet are your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth. 00:09:18.806 --> 00:09:24.152 And the second one is Ezekiel 3, verses 1 through 3. 00:09:24.152 --> 00:09:33.630 And he said to me, son of man, eat what you find, eat this scroll and go speak to the house of Israel. 00:09:33.630 --> 00:09:37.770 So I opened my mouth and he gave me this scroll to eat. 00:09:37.770 --> 00:09:44.974 And he said to me, son of man, feed your belly with this scroll that I give you and fill your stomach with it. 00:09:44.974 --> 00:09:54.082 Then I ate it and it was in my mouth as sweet as honey so I wanted to provide some new testament examples as well. 00:09:55.144 --> 00:09:57.750 In this whole episode I'm going to be quoting,

quoting a lot. 00:09:57.750 --> 00:10:10.207 Yeah, just because I wanted to, um, make sure I did my due diligence on this, just because, um, it's such a heated and controversial topic between, um, a lot of different groups within. 00:10:10.249 --> 00:10:10.870 Christianity. 00:10:10.870 --> 00:10:31.572 Um, you know, the Lord's something that's meant to unify the Christian people and um, but I wanted to uh, just provide some context, um, for those people that are kind of see things in black and white, where it's either literal or it's just a memorial and there's no in between. 00:10:31.572 --> 00:10:36.443 So we'll get a little bit deeper into that and some you know, later on. 00:10:36.443 --> 00:10:42.664 But so the New Testament examples I wanted to provide were Hebrews 5, 13 through 14. 00:10:42.664 --> 00:10:44.307 It's reasoned. 00:10:44.307 --> 00:10:48.783 A lot of scholars maintain that it's Paul who wrote Hebrews, although they're not 100% certain. 00:10:48.783 --> 00:10:57.109 Arthur Pink actually has a really good introduction to the book of Hebrews as to why he believes it is indeed Paul. 00:10:57.109 --> 00:11:00.615 So this is Hebrews 5, 13 through 14. 00:11:01.500 --> 00:11:03.686 Quote you need milk, not solid food. 00:11:03.686 --> 00:11:09.107 For everyone who lives on, milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. 00:11:09.107 --> 00:11:18.370 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. 00:11:18.370 --> 00:11:22.383 John 4, 33 through 34. 00:11:22.383 --> 00:11:26.712 So the disciples said to one another has anyone brought him something to eat? 00:11:26.712 --> 00:11:32.371 Jesus said to them my food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work. 00:11:32.371 --> 00:11:36.443 So in those passages, in both the Old and New Testament. 00:11:36.443 --> 00:11:42.850 You can see how the Bible does very frequently reference food and drink to signify something else. 00:11:42.850 --> 00:11:56.221 Reference food and drink to signify something else, like in the book of Hebrews, for example, how you need milk, not solid food. 00:11:56.221 --> 00:12:10.453 You know it's in relation to, as I'm sure you're aware of, new believers who you know read the scriptures, but they might need just some of the basics to start and not to overwhelm them right away with more of the more of the difficult doctrines or more of the difficult sayings in scripture. 00:12:10.833 --> 00:12:14.370 Yeah, and it's also like you said, it's compared to food, which is interesting. 00:12:14.840 --> 00:12:48.783 We have a baby my wife and I do right now, and she's going to be one here in a couple of weeks and you know we've recently transitioned her over into, you know, starting to eat solid foods yeah so it is such an applicable thing to think of it in these terms, to think of like a newer believer, like a baby christian, so to speak,

needing like really simple things at first, or just needing like the the really like, like the stuff that you actually need, right, like babies just need milk, you know yeah but then like transitioning into solid Like babies just need milk, you know, yeah, but then like transitioning into solid foods. 00:12:48.802 --> 00:12:56.047 That's where you start to, you know, work out more right, your jaw starts to actually like work out and you're starting to chew on things, you know, once your teeth develop and all that. 00:12:56.047 --> 00:13:07.993 So it's a really nice analogy here, because it's like you know, when you come to know the Lord, you are a brand new believer and you have this new spiritual life and you do need to start off. 00:13:07.993 --> 00:13:16.258 I don't want to say slow, but you need to really get the simple things first, yeah kind of a little bit more of the core, just fundamental beliefs. 00:13:16.278 --> 00:13:19.282 Yeah, yeah yeah, obviously, in Christianity. 00:13:19.282 --> 00:13:27.134 I think the Nicene Creed is great for that because it's a good summary statement of what the Christian religion believes. 00:13:27.134 --> 00:13:37.934 And I would say it's also a unifying creed because at its core, this is what we're saying about the Godhead. 00:13:37.934 --> 00:13:43.706 So, yeah, I think it's, like you said, definitely applicable to what we're talking about, definitely applicable to what we're talking about. 00:13:43.706 --> 00:14:09.975 So, yeah, definitely, eating and drinking in the scriptures are the internalization of God's word and spiritual growth, which this leads me to understanding when to reading the scripture passages, just so we don't make incorrect applications of the word. 00:14:09.975 --> 00:14:24.475 So I was trying to figure out what the term for this is, but I wanted to talk about I think it's funny that I just stumbled across this this morning but it's called inference to the best explanation. 00:14:24.475 --> 00:14:37.948 And now here's the definition from Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy Inference to the best explanation is the procedure of choosing the hypothesis or theory that best explains the available data. 00:14:39.412 --> 00:14:53.371 The factors that make one explanation better than another may include argument. 00:14:53.371 --> 00:14:58.876 In my opinion doesn't really hold up when you examine it closer. 00:14:58.876 --> 00:15:06.846 Wanted to mention that for the sake of honesty and transparency. 00:15:06.846 --> 00:15:08.513 Obviously we have to admit that jesus christ could have been speaking. 00:15:08.513 --> 00:15:14.448 That like this is, literally and corporally, his body and blood, like you know what I mean, like that's. 00:15:14.448 --> 00:15:24.264 That thought has crossed my mind, as I'm sure it crossed your mind, and obviously from those people who have more of a literalist view, they hold to that position. 00:15:24.264 --> 00:15:29.835 You know, I'm sure that they've thought

about, maybe in their heads it's possible that it might not be. 00:15:31.961 --> 00:15:35.030 So the question then becomes is there a reason to believe otherwise? 00:15:35.030 --> 00:15:55.763 Because the seven I am statements in the gospel of John uh use symbolic, metaphorical language to reveal spiritual truth and since the bread of life is included as the one of the seven I am statements, a person has to argue as to why this one out of the others is the exception, as an outlier, if you will. 00:15:55.763 --> 00:16:25.131 Um, so I'm holding and I'm taking the position that if a person, when you see the seven I am statements, and especially if we're going to focus on the bread of life discourse, that if it's going to be an outlier, you have to have a very good reason as to why, and I think the burden of proof is a the best explanation. 00:16:25.131 --> 00:16:33.100 The factors that make one explanation better than another may include depth, comprehensiveness, simplicity and unifying power. 00:16:33.100 --> 00:16:38.368 I think that focuses more on simplicity and also quote unifying power. 00:16:38.368 --> 00:16:43.174 Because of the cohesiveness it has with the six other IM statements. 00:16:43.174 --> 00:16:43.643 What are your thoughts on that? 00:16:43.643 --> 00:16:43.903 The cohesiveness it has with the six other I am statements. 00:16:43.903 --> 00:16:46.863 What are your? 00:16:46.883 --> 00:16:49.105 thoughts on that. 00:16:49.105 --> 00:17:22.863 I think that's super true and, like you had asked a little bit ago I don't want to get off subject here, but you had asked a little bit ago like when you read the passage where Jesus says unless you eat of my flesh or drink of my blood, you can't partake with me I want to say when I first started getting into reading the Bible and coming across passages like that, it's funny because maybe it's just how I'd automatically assumed Jesus was talking in reference to this already, like the inference. 00:17:22.863 --> 00:17:23.988 Like you said, yeah. 00:17:25.540 --> 00:17:32.585 But I never really like assumed Jesus was saying like you do need to eat my physical flesh, like I to me. 00:17:32.585 --> 00:17:44.612 It's just never popped in my head Like I think he really does want us to like you know, not to you know, for lack of better words become kind of cannibalistic here and just like, like, make us eat his holy flesh or something like that, right? 00:17:44.612 --> 00:17:45.192 Yeah. 00:17:45.594 --> 00:17:52.002 Um, I cause, you know, especially in John, like you gave the seven, I am statements in John, bread of life. 00:17:52.002 --> 00:18:02.342 It's like I'm like, oh, okay, when I first came across him, like Jesus is using like a metaphor here he's using this reference to like food, saying if you eat of me, you know you will have life. 00:18:02.342 --> 00:18:11.790 You know, and obviously the last supper, and you know the statements where Jesus is like unless you do this, you can't partake with me. 00:18:11.790 --> 00:18:14.805 Even then I'm like, okay, I don't. 00:18:15.306 --> 00:18:26.883 I personally had never thought like he really does want us to like assume this is like his actual flesh that we're eating or his blood that we're drinking, because to me it just doesn't make sense. 00:18:26.883 --> 00:18:44.991 I'm like I I don't know why jesus would say like you know, like love your enemies right and do these things that are not like old testament driven necessarily like eye for an eye and all that, but like pretend like you're eating my physical flesh here. 00:18:44.991 --> 00:19:00.409 You know, it almost kind of sounds somewhat out of character of God to be telling people to do something like this, especially because so many biblical passages, other biblical passages, say don't do these crazy things that people in the world do. 00:19:00.409 --> 00:19:01.711 Like something like that right. 00:19:01.711 --> 00:19:02.192 Yeah. 00:19:02.420 --> 00:19:08.520 So to me and that's just me, right that I'm I'm sure everybody out there interprets things somewhat differently sometimes with some of these passages. 00:19:08.601 --> 00:19:17.661 But, um, I know, like the Catholic church holds to the Eucharist, being very specific with this and saying, like the overall Catholic church, I should say I'm sorry for anybody listening. 00:19:18.382 --> 00:19:22.990 Um, that assumes I was just talking about you know, like umbrella terming Catholics here. 00:19:22.990 --> 00:20:13.167 But uh, I know the Catholic church at large does say, like the Eucharist, is this, like you know, powerful transaction happening every time you do communion, every time you do all this stuff, where you're like literally, like imagining that this is physical flesh, like it's becoming Christ's actual physical flesh and then Christ's actual physical blood, right, right, with all of those passages you just recited, I'm like there's just so much you know illustration going on and I love how you put those things together because it's like if you get to read through the Bible, especially the book of John, you'll see there's just so much illustration always happening and Jesus makes so many references and inferences to like the idea of food and drink and that's nourishment for people. 00:20:13.167 --> 00:20:24.209 But he's saying that like he is the food and drink you know, metaphorically, and then you're going to have life if you partake in that, as if you were to like, you know, like he's your meal. 00:20:24.209 --> 00:20:25.251 Quote, unquote, right. 00:20:25.680 --> 00:20:41.590 Yeah, so I think how it would be presented, maybe from a little bit more from a Roman Catholic standpoint, because they would read John 6 and the Bread of Life discourse and you know the passage where some of his followers said you know how can this man give us his flesh to? 00:20:41.671 --> 00:20:42.452 eat Right. 00:20:43.201 --> 00:21:05.067 And so, since it was a hard saying that's why they

went away, it's because they didn't understand as protestants, obviously we agree with that that they they didn't understand, and so they would see it as we're the ones who are walking away from christ because, um, because we misunderstood. 00:21:05.067 --> 00:21:07.391 You know, he is talking literally. 00:21:07.391 --> 00:21:09.575 I mean, that's what they would hold. 00:21:12.319 --> 00:21:16.134 He's talking literally and that was too harsh for them and that you know he doesn't go. 00:21:16.155 --> 00:21:16.695 I think it might have. 00:21:16.836 --> 00:21:26.925 I'm trying to think if it was Brant Petrie or someone else I was watching someone, a Roman Catholic apologist, and they said that you know, if Christ had meant something else then he would have explained it further on. 00:21:27.647 --> 00:21:38.605 Well, I do think that it is kind of presented in John 6 where Jesus says you know, when he's kind of clarifying and he says the words I have spoken to you, they are spirit and they are life. 00:21:38.605 --> 00:21:48.882 Because if you go back to earlier, he says in order to have true eternal life, that you must eat his flesh and drink his blood. 00:21:48.882 --> 00:21:54.943 But then also, further down, he says the words I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 00:21:54.943 --> 00:22:05.292 So it's kind of interesting how you see the correlation there and we'll dive deeper into what Roman Catholics believe and obviously what the Reformed believe. 00:22:05.292 --> 00:22:24.967 We won't get too deep into some of the other traditions, but I did want to say at the outset that I've been seeing it online very frequently right now that it's an either-or, where it's either a memorial view, very empty figures, or it's transubstantiation those are the two categories you have. 00:22:26.061 --> 00:22:29.171 When you really look at it it's like the Orthodox and Anglican are kind of similar. 00:22:29.171 --> 00:22:31.044 It's the real presence but it's mystical. 00:22:31.044 --> 00:22:39.952 The Lutherans even though I don't think they like the term consubstantiation, that's what it's kind of formally known, I think, in history. 00:22:39.952 --> 00:22:43.525 But I think the Lutheran view has kind of evolved from that. 00:22:43.525 --> 00:22:56.369 So I think that Christ is in or with or along there with the bread and wine, almost like he's united himself to that, and obviously a Lutheran is going to be able to explain that view more clearly. 00:22:56.369 --> 00:22:58.444 It's not my. 00:22:58.444 --> 00:23:10.608 I'm not going to focus too heavily on that, because my purpose of this is to compare and contrast the two very I shouldn't say opposite, but the Reformed view and the Roman Catholic view. 00:23:10.890 --> 00:23:19.473 Yeah, yeah, and I know you and I are both not really like expert specialists in like every single denomination out there, right? 00:23:19.473 --> 00:23:40.644 So every denomination could hold this teaching, in particular of

the Eucharist, especially, you know, under a certain light, and I like how you said that, though I think that's really good, and I guess my stance on anybody that does assume that Christ wants you to think literally of this physical flesh and physical blood. 00:23:40.644 --> 00:23:43.451 There's a good passage that you shared with me. 00:23:43.451 --> 00:23:45.034 Actually it's in the New Testament. 00:23:45.034 --> 00:23:48.064 It's Matthew 16, 11 and 12. 00:23:49.065 --> 00:23:59.402 And in this passage Jesus says he says how is it that you fail to understand that I did not speak about bread? 00:23:59.402 --> 00:24:04.925 Right, he says beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. 00:24:04.925 --> 00:24:17.192 And then the Bible says and then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. 00:24:17.192 --> 00:24:21.555 Right, yeah, and a little sidebar, then we'll get back on track here. 00:24:21.555 --> 00:24:24.636 But I'm currently reading Corinthians right now. 00:24:24.636 --> 00:24:39.452 1 Corinthians, yeah, and Paul quotes a passage where he says a little bit of leaven, I'm sorry, a little bit of yeast leavens, the whole lump of bread, right, but he's talking to these Corinthians who are listening to teaching from these bad teachers. 00:24:40.280 --> 00:25:06.421 That's a really good point actually, you know, yeah, so it's like he's literally saying, saying like, think of it this way, and you know, everybody's familiar with with grain and bread at this point, but like back then, like you know, like we're talking like primitive times where people were like kneading dough and and you know, like like farming, you know was very normal for most people, um, but to associate bread with like teaching would have been pretty common sense to people. 00:25:06.421 --> 00:25:22.162 Let's say, like you're hanging out with people and you've got a teacher and they're like, hey, that one guy in your group there, he's bad news man and he's going to like tell you guys and girls to do this certain stuff and if you're not careful it's going to spread and maybe all of you will start doing this stuff. 00:25:22.162 --> 00:25:29.884 He's like, and imagine it this way right, imagine if it's a lump of bread and you put just a little bit of yeast in there, right, it's just going to spread it, the whole lump of dough. 00:25:29.884 --> 00:25:31.409 Right, it's going to spread the whole lump of bread. 00:25:31.409 --> 00:25:36.664 So it's so associated with this like social idea. 00:25:37.365 --> 00:25:57.809 You know, and I think so much I love the examples you gave earlier where you're talking about like you know how do you pronounce it Metonymy, metonymy, metonymy, metonymy where you're referring to a person instead of this other person, but people would understand you're talking about that second person, or metaphor, where it's like it could be, like an example would be it's like this instead of this, right? 00:25:57.809 --> 00:26:12.586 So I think that we have to always consider when we check out these Bible passages, there could be a case where it's not completely taken literally, although it would make more sense to us at the time that it should be taken literally, right? 00:26:12.586 --> 00:26:12.989 Yeah. 00:26:13.221 --> 00:26:21.730 I think we just always have to remember that, because God's word is just so vast, and the more you study it, you're gonna learn so much more about some of the depth behind the background of it too. 00:26:21.730 --> 00:26:23.123 So yeah, I just wanna throw all that out there. 00:26:23.403 --> 00:26:24.665 No, I just want to throw all that out there. 00:26:24.665 --> 00:26:25.248 No, I like that. 00:26:25.248 --> 00:26:49.970 That's what Paul is speaking about, like you said in Corinthians, just about us being one bread, one loaf, and just about it Like obviously what you had said about it, kind of false teachers almost infecting the whole and kind of spreading throughout the bread, which would be, you know, the body of Christ, because obviously he compares the bread, the one loaf, to the body of Christ. 00:26:49.970 --> 00:27:01.665 So, yeah, I find that type of language just kind of fascinating that he uses that, because it makes a lot of sense when you put it in those terms, absolutely lot of sense when you put it in those terms. 00:27:02.968 --> 00:27:03.368 Absolutely. 00:27:04.109 --> 00:27:14.682 So this leads me to Augustine, you know, which is one of my favorite early church fathers. 00:27:14.682 --> 00:27:16.165 I mean, there's so much wisdom in his writings. 00:27:16.165 --> 00:27:27.000 So I came across this passage and you know I've recently there's been quite a few people who have referenced it because I think it's so important. 00:27:27.000 --> 00:27:34.339 There's Gavin Ortland, his YouTube channel, truth Unites, and then William Webster. 00:27:34.339 --> 00:27:39.569 He's another Protestant theologian, slash apologist. 00:27:39.569 --> 00:27:41.433 He's got a few books out. 00:27:42.599 --> 00:27:45.106 So this is Augustine's rule for interpretation. 00:27:45.106 --> 00:27:55.367 So he says, if the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. 00:27:55.367 --> 00:28:03.512 If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or a vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. 00:28:03.512 --> 00:28:07.782 Forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. 00:28:07.782 --> 00:28:09.425 Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, says Christ, and drink his blood. 00:28:09.425 --> 00:28:10.508 Ye have no life in you. 00:28:10.508 --> 00:28:13.540 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice. 00:28:13.540 --> 00:28:26.500 It is therefore a figure enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of

the fact that his flesh was wounded and crucified for us. 00:28:26.500 --> 00:28:36.662 So when people are asking you, where does Augustine ever reference the Lord's Supper or the Eucharist as figurative. 00:28:37.825 --> 00:28:39.086 I think that that's pretty clear. 00:28:39.086 --> 00:28:41.811 I mean to me it. 00:28:41.811 --> 00:28:56.579 You know, augustine is one of the ones that, like, even when you ask, like you ask AI, I've asked it to categorize the early church fathers and it's really cool how sometimes where they put one early church father may change depending on how you ask the question. 00:28:56.579 --> 00:29:03.834 It's really kind of interesting to see it because more often than not it puts Augustine in an ambiguous area. 00:29:03.834 --> 00:29:21.769 More often than not it puts Augustine in an ambiguous area not strictly literal, not necessarily strictly spiritual, but just kind of more ambiguous because he's a little bit harder to pin down on what he actually believes about this. 00:29:21.788 --> 00:29:26.374 But I think from that passage and another part on Christian doctrine which we will get into after this, I think will just further prove this point. 00:29:26.374 --> 00:29:37.383 So the scriptures use dramatic, hyperbolic language, metonymy oftentimes to prove a point, and I think that eat my flesh and drink my blood is no exception. 00:29:37.383 --> 00:29:44.801 So would you do me the favor, do me a favor and if you wouldn't mind, greeting John Calvin. 00:29:44.801 --> 00:29:50.667 This is Institutes from the Christian Religion, book 4, chapter 17, section 5, for me. 00:29:51.588 --> 00:29:57.776 Sure, the same thing happens with the sacraments, which are signs of God's promises. 00:29:57.776 --> 00:30:09.826 They are not in themselves the things signified, but they bring them to us by way of the metaphor. 00:30:09.826 --> 00:30:15.623 In this way, the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper are not the body and blood of Christ themselves, but they signify the body and blood of Christ. 00:30:15.623 --> 00:30:32.106 Thus, when Christ commands us to eat His flesh and drink His blood, he does not bid us to do so in a carnal or material sense, but in a spiritual sense, as he teaches in John 6, 63. 00:30:32.106 --> 00:30:44.126 The sacrament is a sign of the thing signified and therefore is a metonym, that is, the sign stands for the thing it signifies. 00:30:44.126 --> 00:30:53.696 The bread and wine represent the body and blood of Christ, not in substance, but in their function as symbols and means of grace. 00:30:55.362 --> 00:31:06.523 Yeah, that's what kind of was the first time I had actually kind of heard the language of metonym being used for John 6. 00:31:06.523 --> 00:31:06.943 Yeah. 00:31:06.943 --> 00:31:12.903 You know, I was reading just the Institutes of the Christian Religion, just that section on the Eucharist. 00:31:12.903 --> 00:31:16.398 Even though it's not super long, I thought it was super helpful. 00:31:16.398 --> 00:31:16.941 Yeah. 00:31:17.730 --> 00:31:21.144 Just because that type of language that you know. 00:31:21.144 --> 00:31:27.721 Like he says, the bread and wine represent the body and blood of Christ, not in substance, but in their function as symbols and means of grace. 00:31:27.721 --> 00:31:34.611 And that's when I was like, up until this point, I mean, I didn't even know what a, I didn't know what a metonym was. 00:31:34.611 --> 00:31:35.951 I mean it's not often. 00:31:36.011 --> 00:31:44.381 I mean, you hear like metaphor, symbol, hyperbole, those are things you kind of hear a little bit more frequently in our culture, but I don't. 00:31:44.381 --> 00:31:50.246 Synecdoche and metonyms are something I don't really hear referenced at all. 00:31:50.246 --> 00:31:53.298 Yeah same, I actually had to figure out how it was pronounced. 00:31:53.298 --> 00:31:55.916 I mean, I kind of took a guess on it. 00:31:56.438 --> 00:31:57.601 But when I was studying it. 00:31:58.809 --> 00:32:04.109 So this leads me back to Augustine on his work on Christian doctrine. 00:32:04.109 --> 00:32:05.893 This leads me back to Augustine on his work on Christian doctrine. 00:32:05.893 --> 00:32:10.060 This directly applies to what Calvin has said and kind of reinforces it. 00:32:10.060 --> 00:32:23.477 He says Now as to follow the letter and to take signs for the things that are signified by them is a mark of weakness and bondage passage. 00:32:23.477 --> 00:32:32.263 And I did like that because in his work I think he's he's explaining, you know, as I said earlier, just about when to take a passage, literal versus figurative. 00:32:32.263 --> 00:32:38.971 And then he even further goes on to say to take the signs for the things signified by them as a mark of weakness and bondage. 00:32:38.971 --> 00:32:51.445 And it's like to me that means that what he's saying is that if you interpret the sign for the actual thing it signifies, it's a mark of weakness and bondage. 00:32:51.509 --> 00:32:56.663 You're not truly understanding, because the whole purpose of a sign is to point to something. 00:32:56.663 --> 00:33:01.321 It's not to be that something necessarily, but it's to point to something Right. 00:33:01.321 --> 00:33:18.875 So I think that Augustine's view is just the bread and wine signify Christ's body and blood and that reducing their elements, I think of the Eucharist to just to kind of more materialism and the corporal presence. 00:33:18.875 --> 00:33:23.540 We're going to get into some of the difficulties that lie in that approach. 00:33:23.540 --> 00:33:27.690 Did you have anything you wanted to touch on in that Like? 00:33:27.690 --> 00:33:29.395 Have you heard any of this from Augustine? 00:33:29.696 --> 00:33:30.480 Not that I can remember. 00:33:31.171 --> 00:33:38.101 I've heard people say I've never heard it put that way Like it's weakness and bondage. 00:33:38.181 --> 00:33:42.520 Right, if you're mistaken, literal for metaphor,

metaphor for literal I like that. 00:33:42.520 --> 00:34:02.218 I also would say that it reminds me of just sometimes, people growing and learning new things all the time, and what I mean by that is remember when Jesus taught the parable of the sower I think it was the parable of the sower, but the disciples afterwards were like, can you teach us what that means? 00:34:02.218 --> 00:34:43.728 Yeah, right, and then he did, and then he told them he's like you know, for those who I want to reveal this to, I will, but for the rest, everything's going to be kind of a big metaphor, right, it's just going to be this big illustration that you might not ever settle with, right, yeah, but with the disciples he did share the actual literal meaning of what he was talking about with that parable, and I like that because it shows that, like these were his students, you know he was the rabbi and he's like let me just give you a really illustrative idea of like the kingdom of God, you know, and spiritual growth and all this stuff, and I'm trying to imagine, like the disciples and their reaction. 00:34:43.728 --> 00:34:47.318 They're probably listening to this parable and they're like what, what do you talk? 00:34:47.318 --> 00:34:48.039 What is that? 00:34:48.039 --> 00:34:51.358 Yeah, sower Like who's who here, you know. 00:34:51.358 --> 00:34:51.780 Yeah. 00:34:51.989 --> 00:34:54.842 But then he's like, okay, I'll explain it to you. 00:34:54.842 --> 00:35:00.014 You know, have you ever had like a teacher who does that He'll like run through something, or she will run through something? 00:35:00.014 --> 00:35:05.641 And then after you're like, can you teach me that again or explain it a little bit more in depth? 00:35:05.641 --> 00:35:11.336 Right, and then they have to, otherwise, you know, you're just not going to get it To me. 00:35:11.336 --> 00:35:16.889 I feel like it can be weakness and bondage, but I also feel like it could be a part of your growth, part of your learning process. 00:35:17.070 --> 00:35:29.827 Learning process in your relationship with God, because there's a lot of stuff in our relationships with God where we think we kind of nail it at some point and then God will come to us and show us like it's incomplete, right. 00:35:30.208 --> 00:35:33.536 We have not reached that end zone yet with the understanding of that. 00:35:33.536 --> 00:35:43.175 I want to say for myself, the last couple of years a lot of that has happened, especially as I've kind of done like this little bit of independent Bible, studying biblical studies on my own, as we talked about a little bit ago. 00:35:43.175 --> 00:35:46.635 I kind of done like this little bit of independent Bible studying biblical studies on my own, as we talked about a little bit ago. 00:35:46.635 --> 00:35:52.697 I kind of dove into the Old Testament stuff a little bit more and kind of like exactly what we're talking about. 00:35:52.697 --> 00:36:09.356 I found that it is just so immense with metaphorical language, a lot of times symbolic language, especially with the prophets right, the prophets like Isaiah, sometimes Jeremiah and some of the minor prophets when they discuss things. 00:36:09.356 --> 00:36:13.996 It can just be this illustration of things you know and it's fascinating. 00:36:13.996 --> 00:36:14.657 It's cool. 00:36:14.717 --> 00:36:19.378 It's really cool because it shows that the Bible can't just be slimmed down to just one form of language. 00:36:19.378 --> 00:36:20.181 Right. 00:36:20.181 --> 00:36:20.550 You know. 00:36:20.550 --> 00:36:21.672 So I just wanted to show that. 00:36:21.672 --> 00:36:22.715 I thought that was cool. 00:36:22.715 --> 00:36:24.478 I'm sorry, I don't want to get off track, but I know we're talking about? 00:36:24.498 --> 00:36:25.842 No, you're not off track at all. 00:36:25.842 --> 00:36:32.409 Augustine's stuff. 00:36:32.409 --> 00:36:32.851 Yeah, yeah, yeah yeah. 00:36:32.851 --> 00:36:34.052 The whole the disciples asking Christ to explain something. 00:36:34.052 --> 00:36:34.891 You know, because they even ask him. 00:36:34.891 --> 00:36:36.574 You know why do you speak to them in parables? 00:36:36.574 --> 00:36:41.657 Right and he says in seeing, they do not see, and in hearing, they do not hear, nor do they understand. 00:36:42.478 --> 00:37:03.750 He says but blessed are your eyes, for they see and blessed are your ears for they hear, and he even goes on to explain that, like the Pharisees, for example, that some of them, it was just their hardness of heart and that God, literally I mean he makes it sound like that God has the power to harden people's heart. 00:37:03.750 --> 00:37:06.065 I mean he makes it sound like that God has the power to harden people's heart. 00:37:06.065 --> 00:37:12.407 Going to Romans, paul thoroughly explains how Pharaoh, for example, god hardened his heart. 00:37:12.407 --> 00:37:25.610 It's a scriptural, biblical thing to reference and it's like God has that power, he has that authority, power. 00:37:25.610 --> 00:37:27.494 He has that authority and then to be able to open. 00:37:27.494 --> 00:37:28.998 Open up what's to be understood, or the true meaning of things. 00:37:28.998 --> 00:37:29.458 Um, sometimes it's. 00:37:29.458 --> 00:37:35.742 I mean, obviously, I think it's the holy spirit's work, kind of what you were saying and that that enlightening us. 00:37:35.742 --> 00:37:38.952 Um, you know, I know we've talked about matthew 16. 00:37:38.952 --> 00:37:45.458 Blessed are you, simon barjona, for flesh and blood hasn't revealed, revealed this to you, but my father, who is in heaven, yeah. 00:37:46.190 --> 00:38:07.284 So it's like you have that revelation, that revealing of the kingdom, of just that deep insight of the true meaning of the scriptures that takes place, and I think that for believers, I think it just when you mature, I think you start to understand more and more as the Holy Spirit reveals it to you. 00:38:07.530 --> 00:38:09.137

Yeah, 100%. 00:38:09.811 --> 00:38:25.347 So, before we touch on comparing and contrasting the Reformed view and the Roman Catholic view, and I wanted to touch on one last quote from an early church father, clement of Alexandria, in his work. 00:38:25.347 --> 00:38:44.525 The Instructor, so he says, noted the mystery of the bread in as much as he speaks of it as flesh. 00:38:44.525 --> 00:39:00.213 But since he said, the bread which I will give is my flesh, and since flesh is moistened with blood and blood is figuratively termed wine, thus in many ways the word is figuratively described as meat and flesh and food and bread, and blood and milk. 00:39:00.213 --> 00:39:05.284 The Lord is all of these to give enjoyment to us who have believed on him. 00:39:05.284 --> 00:39:14.396 Let no one think it's strange when we say that the Lord's blood is figuratively represented as milk, for is it not figuratively represented as wine? 00:39:15.438 --> 00:39:17.682 So here you have Clement of Alexandria. 00:39:17.682 --> 00:39:26.177 He expresses the many ways in which Christ and his word are figuratively represented in different forms as spiritual nourishment to our souls. 00:39:26.177 --> 00:39:38.141 And so, but I will say for some of the argumentation I see a little bit more online, coming more from an Orthodox or a Roman Catholic background, and it's not always the case. 00:39:38.141 --> 00:39:57.119 Some are obviously can be charitable, but you get a little bit of this where it's like the main purpose of their page or their Instagram page is to just kind of tear down another denomination Like that's like their whole premise and um, which I find more value, or appreciate people that it's a little bit more of like they talk about what they like about their own denomination. 00:39:57.179 --> 00:40:00.612 It's not just a hundred percent dissing another denomination. 00:40:00.612 --> 00:40:07.159 But I felt like this conversation, just because I I see it too readily assumed that you're a Protestant. 00:40:07.159 --> 00:40:09.340 You don't have any other early church fathers on your side. 00:40:09.340 --> 00:40:12.764 Early church history belongs to the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics. 00:40:12.764 --> 00:40:14.565 They do not belong to the Protestants. 00:40:14.565 --> 00:40:18.934 That's the approach and that's what we're told. 00:40:18.934 --> 00:40:21.000 That's just how it is when we have to accept it. 00:40:21.000 --> 00:40:38.094 And it's like I definitely don't accept that because I've read some of the early church fathers and from a cursory, high level view, when you start to dive deeper into this stuff, you kind of see that, oh wait, some of what they believe is a little bit more complicated. 00:40:38.094 --> 00:40:40.282 It isn't just this black and white like. 00:40:40.282 --> 00:40:42.110 You know what I'm saying. 00:40:42.190 --> 00:40:42.831 Does that make sense? 00:40:42.831 --> 00:40:43.733 It does, yeah. 00:40:43.733 --> 00:40:47.923 Yeah, I

think, and that's true of any I'd say any denomination. 00:40:47.923 --> 00:40:57.293 Even like if I've tried to dive into any historical belief of a denomination or anything, there's always something new to learn about them, right? 00:40:57.293 --> 00:41:07.614 Where they stand on things, really specific things too but also just why they came to that settlement, that conclusion in their belief structure Right. 00:41:07.614 --> 00:41:08.137 Right. 00:41:08.356 --> 00:41:13.900 And I think, yeah, that's that's true of even you know, non-christian religions too, like, like in Islam or something Right. 00:41:13.900 --> 00:41:17.019 It's like they landed on a certain point due to a certain reason. 00:41:17.882 --> 00:41:51.894 Um, and I think what we're talking about mostly is based upon scriptural context and, like the early forefathers, it's like why has this belief maybe continued on, right, like, why has it just been eradicated or disappeared over time through trial and error or, you know, through just you know, consideration among, maybe, sects of different belief structures in the Christian religion, like why is it still going, know, and yeah, I mean the forefathers especially? 00:41:51.894 --> 00:42:01.822 It's interesting to hear if people kind of justify that like maybe protestants aren't a part of the same household of faith as maybe, you know, let's say, strictly roman cath. 00:42:01.822 --> 00:42:10.202 It's like I think we're kind of getting a little too far beyond scriptural definition of what the household of faith actually is, you know. 00:42:10.202 --> 00:42:10.623 Yeah. 00:42:11.291 --> 00:42:12.353 So yeah, so that's. 00:42:12.353 --> 00:42:13.759 I want to comment on that. 00:42:13.759 --> 00:42:14.420 That's a good one. 00:42:14.909 --> 00:42:16.994 Yeah, yeah, I've definitely you know. 00:42:16.994 --> 00:42:23.317 I like you know, even though I don't always agree with these two guys, I like that they're a little bit more ecumenical. 00:42:23.317 --> 00:42:25.983 I'm not a universalist, but I am a little bit more. 00:42:26.003 --> 00:42:26.302 You're not. 00:42:26.302 --> 00:42:30.179 I thought you were landing there now, okay, oh, I'm sorry I'll have to leave now. 00:42:30.179 --> 00:42:31.181 Yeah, I'm just kidding. 00:42:31.369 --> 00:42:51.972 No, but I am a little bit more ecumenical in the sense that I try to be charitable and have respect for people of other denominations, people of other denominations, even though that can be challenging at times because when you feel like it's a little bit more of an attack on your beliefs, where I guess, when it comes to people that make that their primary focus and. 00:42:52.012 --> 00:42:56.663 I get a little bit too deep into the weeds with that and I, you know I try not to. 00:42:56.663 --> 00:43:07.619 I try not to engage or like argue on online just because it's so easy to it's easy to and it just it seems unhelpful because it's like I'm not going to convince anybody. 00:43:07.619 --> 00:43:19.391 Um, you know, I'm not going to convince anybody in an argument online, right of my position, especially if I'm nasty yeah so it's like for me, it's like I'd rather be. 00:43:19.632 --> 00:44:11.197 You know, try to do my my best about listening to others and their approach, but I also think too that when there's caricatures of our beliefs or you know, and a little bit more of very dismissive attitude, where, like I said, just a lot of belittling, and I tend to find that people that I meet in person typically, you know, you usually see the stuff from people that are just, you know, I think that anonymous Well, not just really anonymous, but like I feel like social media, like it has a way of of of highlighting and really propping up the people that are more go out of their way to be controversial go out of their way to be antagonistic because more people engage with it right yeah, I mean no one, they do they say you know, you put something out there. 00:44:11.237 --> 00:44:13.045 Say love your neighbor, you know. 00:44:13.045 --> 00:44:17.699 I don't think too many people are going to give you a hard time about that, but but there will probably be at least one. 00:44:17.719 --> 00:44:22.137 Yeah, yeah, I mean, it's gonna be some guy out there he's's like oh really, what do you mean by that? 00:44:22.137 --> 00:44:22.498 You know. 00:44:22.659 --> 00:44:24.204 Yeah, yeah. 00:44:24.204 --> 00:44:25.827 I think you get the overall premise. 00:44:25.827 --> 00:44:26.489 Yeah, yeah. 00:44:26.489 --> 00:44:33.063 It's kind of a fine line to walk because you want to do your due diligence to. 00:44:35.090 --> 00:44:38.775 Be decent, right Be decent Be civil, be civil, be organized. 00:44:38.775 --> 00:44:44.983 You don't want to like have these emotional outbursts on people that do not share the same identical beliefs that you do. 00:44:44.983 --> 00:44:45.945 Right, right. 00:44:46.630 --> 00:45:02.961 Okay, so now this leads us to, now that we've discussed a little bit more of the early church fathers, and, like the diverse views that are presented, I thought it would be helpful to kind of go into the Roman Catholic and Reformed view of the Eucharist. 00:45:04.210 --> 00:45:36.101 And so I wanted to start off with the Reformed perspective on the Eucharist, and this is going to be the Westminster Confession of Faith Worthy receivers outwardly partaking of the visible elements and crucified in all benefits of his death, the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with or under the bread and wine, yet as really but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance as the elements themselves are to their outward senses. 00:45:36.101 --> 00:45:48.197 So, from a Reformed or Calvinistic standpoint, there's an emphasis on spiritual, real presence, you know, and not corporally or physical, and we'll get into the reason as to why in a little bit. 00:45:48.197 --> 00:45:55.882 It does hold

that the bread and wine are symbols and that there's like the sacramental union between the sign and the thing signified. 00:45:55.882 --> 00:46:04.070 I've learned a little bit more about that recently, um, just because it it points to like a spiritual reality. 00:46:04.070 --> 00:46:04.610 Okay. 00:46:04.891 --> 00:46:06.293 So same thing with baptism. 00:46:06.293 --> 00:46:14.918 So this position seems to be somewhat closely aligned with Ambrose Augustine in his later works Origen and Athanasius. 00:46:14.918 --> 00:46:18.980 So the early church fathers didn't all agree. 00:46:18.980 --> 00:46:23.864 Sometimes they're at variance even with themselves, even as John Calvin notes in the Institutes. 00:46:23.864 --> 00:46:26.605 So it's like they didn't always agree with each other. 00:46:26.605 --> 00:46:27.186 Nor did they. 00:46:27.186 --> 00:46:30.947 If they're at variance with themselves, sometimes they change their views. 00:46:30.947 --> 00:46:39.695 I wanted to see if you could read for me this is jumping to the Roman Catholic perspective on the Eucharist. 00:46:39.695 --> 00:46:41.860 So this is Catechism of the Catholic Church, part two, the celebration of the Catholic Church. 00:46:41.860 --> 00:46:43.884 Part two, the Celebration of the Christian Mystery. 00:46:43.884 --> 00:46:46.373 Article three, the Sacrament of the Eucharist. 00:46:46.373 --> 00:46:50.802 And this is section 1374, if you wouldn't mind reading it for me. 00:46:51.050 --> 00:46:56.681 Yeah, the mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. 00:46:56.681 --> 00:47:06.291 It raises the Eucharist, above all the sacraments, as the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all sacraments tend. 00:47:06.291 --> 00:47:22.521 In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist, the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, is truly, really and substantially contained. 00:47:22.521 --> 00:47:47.344 This presence is called, in quotes, real, by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence, as if they could not be real too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense, that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, god and man makes himself holy and entirely present. 00:47:48.570 --> 00:47:56.744 I did like how they mentioned that this presence is called real, by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence, as if they could not be real too. 00:47:56.744 --> 00:48:00.072 Yeah, I think it's good that they noted that. 00:48:00.072 --> 00:48:18.130 I appreciate that type of language because obviously, from the Reformed perspective, they believe in more of like a spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist, or at least the fact that Christ's body and blood are present to the faith of believers. 00:48:18.130 --> 00:48:28.722 So the spiritual eating, the spiritual nourishment is the eating is spiritual, it's a spiritual eating rather than a corporal eating of the actual literal. 00:48:28.929 --> 00:48:35.969 So it's like the mode is what we're discussing so spiritual is no less real, it's just. 00:48:35.969 --> 00:48:55.639 I guess it's the way the Holy Spirit communicates the body and blood to us in a spiritual way rather than it being, you know, from a Catholic perspective, like it says in the catechism here it says that in the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity. 00:48:55.639 --> 00:48:58.057 So body, blood, soul, divinity, they're all there. 00:48:58.057 --> 00:49:03.177 Obviously, the wine and wafer appear to be there, but that's the accidents. 00:49:03.177 --> 00:49:05.181 But that's not truly what it is. 00:49:05.181 --> 00:49:09.260 They're no longer there, but Christ's body and blood and soul and divinity are there. 00:49:09.650 --> 00:49:12.016 Yeah, it says he's substantially contained. 00:49:13.340 --> 00:49:13.942 Is that what it says? 00:49:14.110 --> 00:49:14.931 Yeah, in the middle there. 00:49:14.931 --> 00:49:27.865 It says in the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist, the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, is truly, really and substantially contained. 00:49:29.010 --> 00:49:36.824 Yeah, I think what's good about this definition, or the fact that they have a definition? 00:49:36.824 --> 00:49:38.155 I think it's a lot easier. 00:49:38.155 --> 00:49:47.139 You know, it's still a little complex, but I think it's a little bit easier to have disagreements and discussions when there's a formal definition laid down. 00:49:47.159 --> 00:49:52.215 It's like mapped out for you yeah, you can see what, what the the whole reasoning is. 00:49:52.577 --> 00:50:18.003 Yeah, yeah so, like anglicanism and, like I said, orthodoxy, not like, not that they have a bunch in common, but I would say that when it comes to the eucharist, they're a little bit more, have a little bit more in common from my understanding, just because they both approach it, that the Eucharist, that they believe in the Christ's real presence, but it's more of a mystery you know, it's a mystical sense, so they don't bother to elaborate how that is actually done With Roman Catholicism. 00:50:18.090 --> 00:50:19.092 They have explained. 00:50:19.092 --> 00:50:36.242 This is what we think actually happens, and so I think it's important to note that the concepts of transubstantiation, where the bread and wine are changed in substance into the actual body and blood of Christ, though the accidents or the appearance of bread and wine remain. 00:50:36.242 --> 00:50:39.356 So I think that that's really interesting. 00:50:39.356 --> 00:51:04.427 So it looks like, for this view, some of the early church fathers that are notable that would have kind of held more to a literal presence, even though obviously the who knows how much they would agree or disagree with the concept of

transubstantiation, which, the way it's presented by the Roman Catholic Church, it looks like Irenaeus, cyprian and Ambrose affirmed the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. 00:51:14.989 --> 00:51:19.210 Even though that the precise vocabulary wasn't present, it seemed like their views more closely aligned with the literalist view. 00:51:19.210 --> 00:51:30.461 So it was the fourth ladder in Council in 1215 that formally defined transubstantiation, and then it was reinforced later on down the road between 1545 and 1563 at the Council of Trent. 00:51:30.461 --> 00:51:38.869 So it's like here you don't have a definitive statement about the Lord's Supper and the way in which transubstantiation is until 1215. 00:51:38.869 --> 00:51:44.623 So that's a whole you know over a thousand years after Christ. 00:51:44.623 --> 00:51:50.362 So it's like you got to think there was a lot of different views in the early church and in the Middle Ages. 00:51:50.362 --> 00:51:50.862 Right. 00:51:51.271 --> 00:51:53.719 I think that people would like to just see it as black and white. 00:51:53.719 --> 00:51:58.181 It was an either or, and that all the early church fathers held to a literalist view. 00:51:58.181 --> 00:52:16.692 But I think any historian or apologist in my opinion who's honest, I think has to admit that it's simply not that straightforward as history often isn't yeah right, right, even 100 years. 00:52:17.393 --> 00:52:21.422 like how much variety within a belief structure could there be within 100 years? 00:52:21.422 --> 00:52:23.693 You multiply that by 10. 00:52:23.693 --> 00:52:26.601 You've got 10 times the amount of variety you know. 00:52:26.880 --> 00:52:28.932 Yeah, yeah, I was listening to um. 00:52:28.932 --> 00:52:33.036 I've read the book, but I was listening to Keith Matheson, who I think has a very helpful book. 00:52:33.036 --> 00:52:37.121 It's like 90 pages maybe, but his book is on the Lord's supper. 00:52:37.121 --> 00:52:49.487 He's explaining, uh, common questions and answers, um, but in a he mentions how Cyprian was the first one to actually use language, of the Eucharist being a quote, unquote sacrifice. 00:52:49.487 --> 00:53:04.452 So I think that that in and of itself a sacrifice or sacrificial language being used, because obviously, from a reform view, you understand that Christ was a sacrifice and that you know he was the lamb. 00:53:04.452 --> 00:53:06.990 He's both the lamb and the priest at the same time. 00:53:06.990 --> 00:53:09.936 Um, so we'll get a little bit into that. 00:53:11.099 --> 00:53:18.434 So this leads me to the position I'm going to hold, that Christ's presence is spiritual and not physical. 00:53:18.434 --> 00:53:25.063 So this is a warning from Christ in Matthew 24, verses 23 through 24. 00:53:25.063 --> 00:53:42.403 He says so. 00:53:42.403 --> 00:53:56.101 Those who hold to like a literal, corporal presence of Christ in the Eucharist, who knows, you know, maybe this is unfair, but it does seem to me that they're saying look, here's the Christ body, blood, soul, divinity. 00:53:56.101 --> 00:53:57.164 He is there. 00:53:57.164 --> 00:54:06.623 So the question then becomes should we believe them, since Christ himself is explicitly warning us to be wary of people making that claim. 00:54:06.623 --> 00:54:13.523 So, but the question is is how can the scripture speak about Christ being both with us and not with us? 00:54:13.523 --> 00:54:17.260 And I think this is where a couple passages I think are helpful. 00:54:17.260 --> 00:54:22.398 So Matthew 28, 20, it says teaching them to observe all that. 00:54:22.398 --> 00:54:32.791 I commanded you and behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. 00:54:32.811 --> 00:54:35.054 And then do you mind reading John 16, 7, and then Matthew 26, 11 for me? 00:54:35.054 --> 00:54:35.817 Sure, john 16, 7. 00:54:35.817 --> 00:54:46.733 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the helper will not come to you, but if I go, I will send him to you. 00:54:46.733 --> 00:54:53.273 Then Matthew 26, 11, for you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me. 00:54:54.456 --> 00:54:57.362 Yeah, I thought those were good passages and relevant to bring up. 00:54:57.362 --> 00:55:11.248 Yeah, so Christ is both speaking in these passages that he's with us you know he remains with us and then also that he is not with us, not here, not here yeah. 00:55:12.809 --> 00:55:23.365 So I think that that's really cool to think about, because I could see that someone who is non-Christian being like well, this sounds like a blatant contradiction. 00:55:23.365 --> 00:55:25.318 How can we reconcile these two things? 00:55:25.318 --> 00:55:29.521 He's saying he's always with us and then he said it's to your benefit that I go away. 00:55:29.521 --> 00:55:38.123 So I think that that's the importance of the ascension of Christ, because obviously we have the incarnation that proves that he's human both equally. 00:55:38.123 --> 00:55:39.184 Became man yeah. 00:55:39.809 --> 00:55:41.717 Son of man and equally son of God. 00:55:41.717 --> 00:55:45.721 So we're going to try to figure out how that plays out. 00:55:45.721 --> 00:55:54.619 So this leads us to talking about the Chalcedonian definition and then also about the communication of attributes. 00:55:54.619 --> 00:55:56.998 Do you mind reading the Chalcedonian definition? 00:55:56.998 --> 00:55:57.619 For me, yeah. 00:55:59.331 --> 00:56:03.902 One in the same Christ, son, lord only begotten. 00:56:03.902 --> 00:56:33.922 Acknowledged in two natures, unconfusedly I've never said that word in my life Acknowledged in two natures, unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably, the difference of the natures being in no way removed because of the union of the natures being in no way removed because of the union, but rather the properties of each nature being preserved and, in parentheses, both

concurring into one person and one. 00:56:33.922 --> 00:56:34.945 Hypostasis. 00:56:34.945 --> 00:56:48.465 Hypostasis, I think that's how you pronounce it not as though he was parted or divided into two persons, but one and the self, same son and only begotten. 00:56:48.465 --> 00:57:04.536 God word, lord Jesus Christ, even as, from the beginning, the prophets have taught concerning him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself hath taught us and as the symbol of the fathers hath handed down to us. 00:57:05.931 --> 00:57:06.876 Yeah, that's great. 00:57:06.876 --> 00:57:08.114 So have you read that before? 00:57:08.114 --> 00:57:09.097 I don't think so. 00:57:09.097 --> 00:57:12.878 You don't think so, I think I went over it with Zach Hum in one of our episodes about the Son of man. 00:57:13.380 --> 00:57:14.121 Okay, nice, nice. 00:57:15.490 --> 00:57:32.523 So basically, what I wanted to touch on, in that the Chastodonian definition kind of gives us these guardrails, kind of gives us these guardrails Helping us to avoid error or even, potentially, heresy, is what I think it's laying down, because it's trying to explain how the two natures interact. 00:57:32.523 --> 00:57:39.242 You know, the two natures being how he's both equally son of God and son of man. 00:57:39.242 --> 00:57:41.773 How can he both be God and man at the same time? 00:57:42.295 --> 00:57:45.121 That can be really confusing and a lot to wrap your head around. 00:57:45.121 --> 00:57:45.902 It is yeah. 00:57:46.289 --> 00:57:54.105 But I do think it's helpful that it says that the two natures are unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably. 00:57:54.590 --> 00:58:09.963 The difference of the nature is being in no way removed because of the union, but rather the properties of each nature being preserved, but rather the properties of each nature being preserved, and I think that that's going to be really important in the next area that we're going to cover. 00:58:09.963 --> 00:58:14.686 So the communication of attributes or the communication of properties. 00:58:14.686 --> 00:58:24.114 So it is a Christological concept about the interaction of deity and humanity in the person of Christ. 00:58:24.114 --> 00:58:34.918 It maintains, in the view of the unity of Christ's person, his human and divine attributes and experiences might properly be referred to his other nature, so that the theologian may speak of quote unquote the suffering of God. 00:58:34.918 --> 00:58:58.346 So I think that the way in which we can look at this because, as we know, christ hungered, he thirsted, he got tired, you know a lot of these human traits that, like some of them, of which obviously we cannot ascribe to God in his divinity Like we can say that God died on the cross because he did in the person of Jesus Christ. 00:58:58.887 --> 00:59:02.981 But, as we know, divinity itself doesn't die because it's everlasting, it's immortal. 00:59:02.981 --> 00:59:24.193 So you can properly say, I think that this is why we can say, as Christians, that Mary is the mother of God, because she is, because she gave birth to Jesus Christ, obviously, and the Son of man was united to his divinity, although it's not to be confused that she had anything to do with his divinity, and I think that that's where people get a little bit tripped up. 00:59:24.193 --> 00:59:34.117 So, jc Ryle, I came across this passage listening a long time ago to John MacArthur, who I'm not a big fan of actually. 00:59:34.918 --> 00:59:36.702 So this is kind of a shortened part of it. 00:59:36.702 --> 00:59:45.420 So JC Ryle mentions if the body born of the Virgin Mary can be in more places than one at the same time, it is not a body like our own. 00:59:45.420 --> 00:59:49.045 And then Jesus was not the last Adam in the truth of our nature. 00:59:49.045 --> 00:59:52.818 I did have to read that a couple times. 00:59:52.818 --> 00:59:53.719 Yeah, it took me a second. 00:59:54.282 --> 00:59:55.324 Yeah, I might have to read it again. 00:59:55.855 --> 00:59:57.409 Yeah, I'll read it for you yeah, go ahead. 00:59:57.409 --> 01:00:03.592 Yeah, if the body born of the Virgin Mary can be in more places than one at the same time, it and Mary can be in more places than one at the same time. 01:00:03.592 --> 01:00:08.856 It is not a body like our own and Jesus was not the last Adam in the truth of our nature. 01:00:08.896 --> 01:00:10.476 Okay, that makes more sense now Okay. 01:00:10.737 --> 01:00:13.157 Yeah, how I view it is. 01:00:13.157 --> 01:00:24.885 What he's saying is that for Christ's body to have ubiquity or omnipresence because omnipresence is an attribute of divinity- Sure. 01:00:25.244 --> 01:00:42.309 So, but the body of Christ, if you think about it in the Chalcedonian definition, both natures, they are preserved, meaning that Christ's body is preserved in its human nature, not to be confused or mixed with his divinity. 01:00:42.309 --> 01:00:47.282 So this isn't something new, like they're two blendings. 01:00:47.282 --> 01:00:49.376 Both natures are preserved here. 01:00:49.376 --> 01:00:52.835 So, as we know, the incarnation. 01:00:52.835 --> 01:00:57.123 So this speaks to the truth of him having a real physical body. 01:00:57.123 --> 01:01:02.101 And a real physical body cannot be in more than one place at the same time. 01:01:02.612 --> 01:01:19.778 So that's why it is argued that those people that hold to a corporal or literal presence of Christ in the Eucharist, his body, the body of Christ, cannot be in it does not have ubiquity, does not have omnipresence, when the scriptures speak about Christ's ascension, and that he's seated at the right hand of the Father. 01:01:19.778 --> 01:01:23.456 This is why his divinity is with us. 01:01:23.456 --> 01:01:27.215 Like you know how, like he says you know, I am always with you, even into the end of the age. 01:01:27.215 --> 01:01:41.056 I think, with that being said, like JC, Ryle is trying to emphasize the humanity of Christ,

because if you take away um his humanity and give it on the presence, then it's no longer humanity. 01:01:41.056 --> 01:01:45.947 The properties of his human nature are taken away. 01:01:46.208 --> 01:01:46.989 I see what you're saying. 01:01:46.989 --> 01:01:56.284 Yeah, so if you split his human body into all over the place to be in more place than one, then it's no longer human. 01:01:56.644 --> 01:01:59.217 Yeah, it's denying his humanity in a way. 01:01:59.297 --> 01:02:00.481 Yeah, that makes sense, then Okay. 01:02:02.590 --> 01:02:24.284 I could see how that right there can be really difficult because you have a Christological problem here, One I think is really downplayed by people that hold this view, Because I think it's a serious thing, because it's like once you start going against the Chalcedonian definition, I think you can potentially run into error here. 01:02:25.405 --> 01:02:37.947 So yeah, it also makes me think, as you were talking about just the spiritual implications as well, of, you know, like the Eucharist and participating in the body and blood. 01:02:37.947 --> 01:02:45.166 We read a passage a little bit ago where Jesus said unless I go, I can't send a helper. 01:02:45.166 --> 01:02:45.728 Yeah. 01:02:45.728 --> 01:02:47.978 Right and he's like so. 01:02:47.978 --> 01:02:51.320 Therefore it's better that I go, and I think that's interesting. 01:02:51.320 --> 01:02:54.724 I've always found that passage to be very like encouraging. 01:02:54.724 --> 01:02:55.226 Yeah. 01:02:55.375 --> 01:03:05.693 In a weird way almost Hear me out here Because Jesus is a man, but we also believe that he is God Jesus. 01:03:05.693 --> 01:03:16.003 When he came down to the planet, he could only be in one place at a time, like all of us, like as humans, and I love how this passage he's like. 01:03:16.003 --> 01:03:21.181 But if I go, I can send this helper right and we believe the helper to be the Holy Spirit. 01:03:21.181 --> 01:03:21.804 Right. 01:03:21.884 --> 01:03:22.065 Right. 01:03:22.065 --> 01:03:26.806 And then there's passages that talk about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. 01:03:26.806 --> 01:03:42.121 So I love that whole idea because Jesus is like if I don't go, we can't go to the next stage of this God with human relationship here, and that is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, who will come once I leave, right. 01:03:42.121 --> 01:03:45.898 And then we see that in the book of Acts, right, pentecost, day of Pentecost. 01:03:45.898 --> 01:04:01.110 So I think that's really cool because Jesus is even saying me being a man, being at one place at one time, I'm gonna go, but then we're gonna get a little bit more universal here with the Church and send the Holy Spirit so that the Holy Spirit can indwell the believers right, the believers of God. 01:04:01.791 --> 01:04:15.369 So therefore there is already a spiritual happening going on between the Holy Spirit, you know, indwelling believers now in the church, jesus still being a man, but also God, yeah. 01:04:15.369 --> 01:04:46.088 And so therefore it's like okay, so there is always spiritual stuff happening inside of the people of God and I just feel like to me that's that's really important to remember, because that means that you know, the Holy Spirit indwells us and he's working in us and he's, you know, according to the Bible, he's making us more into like Christ, but Christ is still that man right, that resurrected, while he's God, but like the Holy Spirit's everywhere you know. 01:04:46.088 --> 01:04:48.240 So it's like the implications I'm getting at here. 01:04:48.240 --> 01:04:49.304 I don't want to make this too confusing. 01:04:49.304 --> 01:04:50.318 I feel like I'm kind of talking a little bit. 01:04:50.358 --> 01:04:52.376 No, no, I don't think you're making it too confusing, Okay cool. 01:04:52.496 --> 01:04:57.902 So, like the idea here is, we have this Holy Spirit who can indwell into everybody, right? 01:04:57.902 --> 01:05:05.117 But, Jesus is still that individual man who is now glorified and he's resurrected and he's still God. 01:05:05.117 --> 01:05:09.467 But the Holy Spirit works differently than Jesus, you know. 01:05:09.467 --> 01:05:19.264 So it's like there's two different members of the Trinity that are operating differently still you know, but they're still intertwined because they're part of the Trinity, you know. 01:05:19.936 --> 01:05:28.246 So to me that's cool, because it's like the physicality of Christ is separate from us right now, but the spiritual side of the Trinity is indwelling us. 01:05:28.246 --> 01:05:28.706 Yeah. 01:05:28.706 --> 01:05:34.083 So there will be a spiritual thing that's always happening every time we interact with God, no matter what you know, Right? 01:05:34.083 --> 01:05:36.876 So I hope that kind of makes more sense with what I was trying to get at there. 01:05:37.097 --> 01:05:39.798 Yeah, right, so I hope that kind of makes more sense with what I was trying to get at there. 01:05:39.798 --> 01:05:41.099 Yeah, it does. 01:05:41.099 --> 01:05:50.927 I think that the Holy Spirit, the helper, since we are the body of Christ, it's like the Holy Spirit unites us to the body of Christ the head in heaven. 01:05:51.528 --> 01:05:56.472 Because Christ says I go to prepare a place for you and that's why he leaves. 01:05:56.472 --> 01:06:02.182 And then obviously he does his mediatorial work there in heaven after making his one sacrifice. 01:06:02.182 --> 01:06:04.248 That was sufficient. 01:06:04.248 --> 01:06:16.382 And then it's like he enters the Holy of Holies and then he makes intercession for us and obviously I think that we could probably try to unpack that. 01:06:16.382 --> 01:06:17.686 I think that there might be a lot there. 01:06:19.135 --> 01:06:20.219 Yeah, another subject another time. 01:06:20.219 --> 01:06:22.175 Yeah, another subject another time Exactly. 01:06:22.175 --> 01:06:22.998 Yeah, we'll stay on topic. 01:06:22.998 --> 01:06:31.715 But

yeah, I just think that's cool because, like I said, in identifying the relation between what we're doing here, like, let's say, like the Eucharist, right, yeah. 01:06:32.538 --> 01:06:42.900 It's always going to have somewhat of a spiritual impact and if we're devoting it to Christ, it's like we are trying to devote it to Christ, but like the difference in, maybe, belief systems. 01:06:42.900 --> 01:06:54.878 Here is what's actually going on Like is it becoming, like you said, a corp, a corporal thing, a physical thing, or is it going to be an empowering spiritual thing? 01:06:54.878 --> 01:06:55.378 Right? 01:06:55.378 --> 01:06:55.940 Right. 01:06:55.940 --> 01:06:59.086 Tying it more to the Holy Spirit and his activity connecting us with God. 01:06:59.126 --> 01:07:00.817 So yeah, yeah, as Christ says. 01:07:00.817 --> 01:07:02.061 You know, the Spirit gives life. 01:07:02.902 --> 01:07:04.367 Yeah exactly In John 6. 01:07:04.367 --> 01:07:24.440 So I know there's a lot there because with the Eucharist, for example, there's the idea of the representation of Christ in the Eucharist according to Roman Catholicism and obviously it's perceived by some from the Protestant side that that is a re-sacrifice of Christ. 01:07:24.440 --> 01:07:32.885 Like BB Warfield, for example, he holds that the Eucharist is not a sacrifice, it is a participation in that one sacrifice. 01:07:32.885 --> 01:07:40.137 It's a sacrificial meal but obviously from a Roman Catholic perspective it is a sacrifice each time it's carried out. 01:07:40.137 --> 01:07:50.688 Now I think in terms of like, if they were to leave it at, you know that it was a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, I think I would be okay with that type of language. 01:07:50.688 --> 01:07:54.936 But obviously according to them it's a propitiatory sacrifice but it's an unbloody one. 01:07:54.936 --> 01:08:05.007 But I think you run into a little bit of difficulty there, because it's supposed to be one in the same sacrifice, but they say the mass or the Eucharist is a sacrifice itself. 01:08:05.007 --> 01:08:13.556 So there's a little bit of verbal judo that has to be done, I think, because so are you saying? 01:08:13.556 --> 01:08:20.998 At one hand they're saying it's one sacrifice, on the other hand it's saying it's these are an unbloody sacrifice. 01:08:20.998 --> 01:08:27.565 But as we know, without the shedding of blood, according to Hebrews, there is no forgiveness of sin, so it has to be a bloody sacrifice. 01:08:27.565 --> 01:08:31.483 So I think that that's where you run into a little bit of it of an issue. 01:08:32.085 --> 01:08:37.286 But before we kind of briefly touch on that, so this is going to be St Athanasius. 01:08:37.405 --> 01:08:42.917 He says on that, so this is going to be St Athanasius. 01:08:42.938 --> 01:08:54.317 He says the reason for his mention, talking about Christ into heaven, of the Son of man, was in order to draw them away from the material notion that thenceforth they might learn that the flesh he spoke of was heavenly food from above and spiritual nourishment from him. 01:08:54.317 --> 01:09:07.935 For he says, what I have spoken to you is spirit and life, which is as much to say what is displayed and given to the world salvation, or for the world salvation, is the flesh which I wear. 01:09:07.935 --> 01:09:21.979 But this flesh and its blood will be given to you by me spiritually as nourishment, so that this may be bestowed spiritually on each and may become for individuals a safeguard to ensure the resurrection to eternal life. 01:09:21.979 --> 01:09:42.420 Nice, so I thought it was relevant to kind of bring in, you know, some of what the early church fathers say, because I don't think it should be underestimated the spiritual connotations of the Eucharist and what it does which you know, I don't think I fully, obviously understand um, but I think it's worth noting that there are other ways. 01:09:42.579 --> 01:09:50.841 That's not just this whole, just memorialism, kind of empty symbols versus the literalist view. 01:09:50.841 --> 01:09:55.657 You see what I mean there's a little bit of more of a nuance and a little bit more. 01:09:57.161 --> 01:10:02.582 yeah, I think it can be both figurative and I also think it can be spiritual nourishment, and I think it's. 01:10:02.582 --> 01:10:15.377 It's unification of the body of Christ as believers, both um horizontally, and then obviously the vertical aspect to it, the connection and union with Christ, right Um. 01:10:15.377 --> 01:10:16.740 So there's a lot going on there. 01:10:16.740 --> 01:10:20.128 I think that can't be summed up easily. 01:10:20.128 --> 01:10:40.515 So, going back to what I had said about the Eucharist, and obviously it's a celebration of that once-for-all sacrifice of Christ and then obviously, once he's made that sacrifice, he goes to prepare a place for us and makes intercession for us to the father. 01:10:40.515 --> 01:10:47.958 So Hebrews 10, 14 says for by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. 01:10:47.958 --> 01:10:51.648 So I thought that that was kind of a good passage to end on. 01:10:51.648 --> 01:11:02.350 Was there any other thing that you will kind of wanted to touch on, or any anything that doesn't add up to you or anything that you wanted to kind of wanted to touch on or any anything that doesn't add up to you or anything that you wanted to kind of reflect on? 01:11:02.951 --> 01:11:26.743 Um, I would say just, I always think of this with myself, like not to sound selfish, but, um, cause you had mentioned, you know, the one-time substitutionary atonement for sin, versus, like this repetitive substitutionary atonement because of what we might be able to do Right, like, let's say, you miss communion or mass one day. 01:11:26.743 --> 01:11:44.402 Well, if, if your belief is that you have to participate in that in order to stay atoned for it'd be really easy to, you know, fall into

danger pretty quickly because something could come up and you might miss it, you know. 01:11:44.402 --> 01:11:52.498 But I've found comfort in recognizing that, yes, I'm a sinner. 01:11:52.498 --> 01:12:14.225 Because of my sin, whether it's what I will do now or what I have done, I do need a Savior to make me right with God, and to recognize Christ as being the one who has connected me to God is really life-changing. 01:12:14.225 --> 01:12:40.569 So for anybody that's out there listening, you know, so for anybody that's out there listening, if you think that you need to keep making yourself right with God and you don't believe Jesus did that one time, for all substitutionary atonement, I would say you're going to exhaust yourself because I think it's impossible to keep up with that chore list honestly, and I've come to find out with my relationship with God that Jesus is very real. 01:12:41.456 --> 01:12:45.346 I've prayed to him so many times and I've seen things happen because of my prayer, life with him. 01:12:45.346 --> 01:12:50.886 Holy Spirit's real, god the Father's real, the Trinity I believe is truly, 100% real. 01:12:50.886 --> 01:13:01.277 And the more I interact with the Trinity through Christ, by the Holy Spirit's power and God the Father's providence, I've just seen a real nice life change happen. 01:13:01.277 --> 01:13:06.065 And I'm all about people being able to grow into the Lord. 01:13:06.065 --> 01:13:12.207 And the one thing I hate I guess I just kind of hate this about life in general is I hate seeing people get bullied. 01:13:12.207 --> 01:13:14.704 You know, I don't like people getting bullied at all. 01:13:14.704 --> 01:13:16.274 I think it's not great, you know. 01:13:16.274 --> 01:13:20.018 Yeah, I never liked getting bullied you know in school and stuff. 01:13:20.057 --> 01:13:23.086 So I'm sure most people really don't like it, unless you're kind of crazy. 01:13:23.274 --> 01:13:25.173 Unless you are the bully, then you're not going to like it. 01:13:25.173 --> 01:13:26.617 Yeah, that's a problem. 01:13:26.617 --> 01:13:28.199 Please go to counseling? 01:13:28.220 --> 01:13:29.322 No, I'm just kidding. 01:13:29.322 --> 01:13:51.663 So I think recognizing that you can have confidence in that one-time substitutionary atonement for Christ is going to relieve a lot of weight off your shoulders and your job, from this point, moving forward, based off of what Christ taught, is to continue to have faith, to continue to seek him, whatever that looks like for you. 01:13:51.663 --> 01:13:55.922 Sure, you know, but it's the most important thing. 01:13:55.922 --> 01:13:56.664 Yeah. 01:13:56.994 --> 01:13:59.435 And I would say even with, like, the Eucharist and mass and all that cause. 01:13:59.435 --> 01:14:00.439 I have friends who are Catholic. 01:14:00.439 --> 01:14:11.307 I have, you know, family that are Catholic and they're very devoted and lovely people too, but they're very committed to making sure that that is a normal

practice in their life, which you know. 01:14:11.307 --> 01:14:19.551 They're just expressing their faith that way, I would say, just to make your life easier, right, I would say just to make your life easier, right. 01:14:19.551 --> 01:14:27.841 Worry about your connection with Christ through prayer more than anything else, through scripture reading more than anything else. 01:14:27.841 --> 01:14:42.902 Not a traditional thing, not a teacher teaching you stuff, maybe not even us, right, it's just your relationship with Jesus Christ, mainly through prayer and scriptural teachings and the belief in that substitutionary atonement, through that one-time sacrifice. 01:14:42.994 --> 01:14:57.201 To me that's very important because, I feel like if you are trying to continue to have that substitutionary sacrifice repeated over and over again, you're never going to be completely 100% right. 01:14:57.234 --> 01:14:58.518 You're never going to be completely taken care of. 01:14:58.518 --> 01:15:37.024 I think it's almost like the, you know, maybe there's an acknowledgement of the one-time sacrifice of Christ, obviously, and His atonement, but it almost seems like, I guess, what it could be perceived as is that the application of it is, since we're finite beings and we continue to sin, that we would need the application of that forgiveness over and over again, repetitively yeah, in which in which we do, I think, by christ, I think that he, you know, for I think he, I think he forgives us and continues to forgive us, um, but I also think, in a real sense, obviously we are forgiven as a whole yeah 01:15:37.305 --> 01:15:43.787 and I think that that's where like justification comes in, because I mean the, and I think that that's where like justification comes in, Cause I mean the scriptures talk about that it's God himself that justifies the ungodly. 01:15:43.787 --> 01:15:51.177 And then, and I think in Romans eight, I think near the end, it talks about how, um, if God, who justifies, who is he? 01:15:51.177 --> 01:15:52.902 Who can, who can condemn? 01:15:52.902 --> 01:15:55.226 I think that those are really so. 01:15:55.226 --> 01:15:58.365 I think what we're seeking as Christians oftentimes is, um, just that peace with God. 01:15:58.365 --> 01:16:00.734 Right, I think what we're seeking as Christians oftentimes is just that peace with God. 01:16:00.734 --> 01:16:08.269 I think that that's really what it's about, because I think different Christian denominations do it in different ways. 01:16:08.269 --> 01:16:16.278 But I think in the Reformed view it's a little bit more of like that one-time atonement on the cross, and we still doubt because we're human, and you know, we still doubt because we're human. 01:16:16.278 --> 01:16:26.390 But I think that when we focus a little bit more of like if Christ says that we are forgiven, it's like who are we to undermine that? 01:16:26.390 --> 01:16:27.371 And doubt him. 01:16:27.610 --> 01:16:28.836 Sure, you know what I? 01:16:28.836 --> 01:16:28.935 Mean. 01:16:28.956 --> 01:16:35.782 Like how can we doubt his, I guess his word in that Like because does that kind of make sense? 01:16:35.841 --> 01:16:39.073 It really does, because does that kind of make sense? 01:16:39.073 --> 01:16:39.453 It really does. 01:16:39.453 --> 01:16:55.247 And to add on to that, because I think that's great, I would also say, like you said, because I like how you phrased that you said, you know, just putting more emphasis on the most important thing, and that is that once you are born again, you are forgiven, right, you just are. 01:16:55.247 --> 01:16:55.729 Yeah. 01:16:56.275 --> 01:17:36.809 Jesus did an eternal sacrifice by that cross and it was awful, it was one of the worst things anybody could ever imagine going through just for the for all of us right to be redeemed to god, um, so I think that was really well said and I would also just say, like I kind of emphasized a little bit ago, to scripture, scripture, scripture, scripture, scripture is a mountain to climb and it's very difficult to get through sometimes, but it is the most rewarding thing you could do once you actually finally start diving into it and, like I'd mentioned earlier, to help settle a lot of confusion which I think sometimes comes, because it comes about because of man and tradition and teachings and all that. 01:17:36.849 --> 01:17:39.375 I think scripture always kind of outweighs all man and and tradition and teachings and all that. 01:17:39.375 --> 01:17:42.282 I think scripture always kind of outweighs all of that. 01:17:42.282 --> 01:17:54.895 And you're going to learn more just from even hopping into the Bible and studying it, doing deep diving studies, um, and that'll take care of you more than like sometimes learning like what a tradition says about a scripture passage sometimes. 01:17:54.895 --> 01:18:05.408 And what I mean by that is, like I told you earlier today, I got you know, the past couple of years have been kind of an Old Testament focus for me and that thing is just a giant right. 01:18:05.408 --> 01:18:05.829 The Old. 01:18:05.869 --> 01:18:13.377 Testament is one of the biggest beasts you'll ever come across when it comes to like length and depth and metaphorical meaning and all that stuff. 01:18:13.716 --> 01:18:21.489 But the more I get into it, the more I feel like I just learned some of the coolest stuff ever, and the New Testament is just making so much more sense to me now. 01:18:21.614 --> 01:18:35.939 You know there are times where, like I will get into an Old Testament passage you know that maybe I'd read once in my life and now I'm like I'm reading through it and I'm like, oh, this is like exactly what Jesus taught, right, and never saw it ever before in my life. 01:18:35.939 --> 01:18:39.028 And then by the time I get to the New Testament it makes more sense. 01:18:39.028 --> 01:18:43.766 I'm like, oh, this is why he's pretty much reemphasizing this teaching or this

idea again. 01:18:43.766 --> 01:18:50.167 So I think it's really important that kind of systematically we do get into the entire Bible. 01:18:50.167 --> 01:18:55.345 Like I said, it's a very hard thing to do and it's very challenging, but it's the most rewarding thing you can do. 01:18:55.345 --> 01:18:58.777 Honestly is the most rewarding thing you can do honestly. 01:18:58.777 --> 01:19:05.761 So I think that that's going to help when it comes to some of these confusing ideas like whether a passage should be interpreted literally or metaphorically or you know, whatever have you? 01:19:05.761 --> 01:19:06.242 Yeah. 01:19:06.762 --> 01:19:18.159 But it is one of the best ways you can become more discerning, more, I should say, aware of some of the possibilities of what a teaching could be, you know, implicating sometimes. 01:19:18.761 --> 01:19:20.827 So, yeah, just want to add that, no, that's great. 01:19:20.827 --> 01:19:27.452 I think too, what you said kind of made me think of something else, about like going to the hyperbole aspect of it. 01:19:27.452 --> 01:19:39.154 It's just like you said, you know, understand they want to take a passage literally versus figuratively, and you can run into some serious complications or serious problems if you misinterpret. 01:19:39.154 --> 01:19:46.009 Because, for example, you know Jesus says if you know your right eye causes you to sin, cut it out. 01:19:46.009 --> 01:19:50.305 So I don't think he's advocating for self-mutilation. 01:19:50.715 --> 01:19:52.220 A bunch of one-eyed Christians. 01:19:52.220 --> 01:19:54.198 Yeah, yeah, but to literally. 01:19:54.519 --> 01:19:57.126 you know, obviously your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. 01:19:57.126 --> 01:20:08.024 You know that whole statement it's like, well, if we were to take that literally, that could be a problem, because he's talking about the seriousness of sin and cutting out those things that cause you to have temptation. 01:20:08.024 --> 01:20:15.118 Or, you know, he who does not hate his father and mother is not worthy of me At face value. 01:20:15.118 --> 01:20:18.926 If you take that literally, jesus is saying to hate your father and mother. 01:20:19.435 --> 01:20:24.346 This is where Augustine's role for interpretation really comes into handy, because it seems to enjoin a crime or vice. 01:20:24.346 --> 01:20:38.262 So I think what he's saying is there is that basically, it should mean love less, that you should love God and you should love Christ the most, and obviously they should not hold the place of God. 01:20:38.262 --> 01:20:38.885 You know what I mean. 01:20:38.885 --> 01:20:41.899 You shouldn't treat them in such a way. 01:20:41.899 --> 01:20:45.787 That should be reserved for God, I guess. 01:20:45.787 --> 01:20:48.277 But anyway, yeah, thanks for coming on. 01:20:48.277 --> 01:20:50.742 I really appreciate you unpacking this with me. 01:20:50.742 --> 01:20:53.427 It's been a very fun topic. 01:20:53.427 --> 01:20:59.668 I mean, hopefully we've been charitable to those who disagree with us and we love talking about theology. 01:20:59.668 --> 01:21:03.118 But, yeah, thanks again for coming on, Cory, and I'll see you next time. 01:21:03.319 --> 01:21:04.663 Yeah, it's my pleasure, brother, Thank you.