As a former Baptist Calvinist, this is the best explanation/comparison of the two approaches to the topic of salvation/predestination I have ever seen. Thank you. The Lutheran understanding (Biblical understanding) was a great joy to me when "I discovered" (hah, me? no) it 17 years ago. Randy
@Revfiskj Thank you for your time Pastor. I do not deny Christ's word *is*, and I too am saddened that I can't get this across to you. May God bless your work in the Holy Ministry.
Regarding the "worship" of bread and wine. The issue our confessions condemn, is really not the elements, but the Eucharistic adoration that occurs of the consecrated elements apart from their instituted use (ie a Corpus Christi procession). To try dividing out Christ's presence from the elements He is present in gets really close to the same error as Nestorius. When I distribute I say "This is the body of Christ", that which I hold/give ought be adored through eating as Christ instituted.
@Revfiskj Yes, that is what I confess. Bread is not changed into His body, and wine is not changed into His blood. I confess that in the Holy Supper, the true, natural, body and blood of Christ Jesus is truly, and essentially, present in, with, and under the bread and wine. Both, the faithful, and unbelieving communicants physically receive, and ingest, the true body and blood; believers receiving Gods' gracious forgiveness, and unbelievers eating and drinking to their condemnation.
@justusetpeccator1 So you deny Jesus words' "This is my body" carry the weight of their clear, plain meaning? I'm trying to make certain I understand you. It sounds to me that you believe in "consubstantiation," rather than in the Sacramental union. But I may be misunderstanding you. I find it odd that you will confess so much, but will deny the actual words of Scripture: "is." That is the word that shall not be moved by heaven or earth.
@Revfiskj No, I do not deny Jesus' words. I believe you may have a different definition of consubstantiation. I know that Scaer defines it as trying to keep the two elements apart, but I have never heard that definition before. The Cristian Cyclopedia (correctly, I believe) defines it as I have below. Please see the entry on the LCMS site.
This is the true Christian faith. One would search the BOC in vain trying to find where it teaches anything different than this.
Years back, catechumens were taught; Rome says it is body and blood only (Transubstantiation), the Reformed says it is only bread and wine , but the Lutheran says it is all four. (Real Presence)
Nor do Lutherans believe, as has been falsely charged to them, in consubstantiation (the belief that the bread/body, wine/blood are combined into one substance)
@justusetpeccator1 Ah...we do have differing definitions of consubstantiation. Wikipedia agrees with Dr. Scaer, as do I.
I'll stick with the Word "is," and with Luther: "Here two things have become one; I would call that a Sacramental Union, because Christ's body and the bread are there given us as a Sacrament." Quoted by Pieper VIII, p. 363.
You assert in vain that my position is contra the confessions. "But if the Words remain...the elements are truly the body and blood of Christ." LC V 14
Yes, we worship Jesus by eating and drinking His body and blood which is truly, and essentially present in, with, and under the bread and wine (which are also present). But, this should never be understood as worshiping bread and wine.
Lutherans do indeed worship Jesus; and because Jesus is true God, and also true man, it is true that we worship a human. But, this formula does not hold for the Sacrament. The personal union is not the same as the sacramental union.
@justusetpeccator1 Jesus' body is in the bread, and Jesus' blood is in the wine. Concomitance was taught by Rome, that the whole body, blood and person of Christ, are all present in the Eucharist. Scripture makes no claim.
The whole person of Christ, or Jesus' "power" coming into us is not the focus. The power is in the forgiveness of sins, by partaking of the exact same body and blood sacrificed for us, by our High Priest, not to worship, but eat.
@justusetpeccator1 Natural, personal and sacramental: "These three kinds of unions must be spoken about and dealt with separately. Also, one must not be set against the other, or one rejected because of another." J Gerhard
I'm afraid it sounds to me as if you reject the Sacramental union, and that you use the phrase "in, with and under" in order to do so. The phrase is meant to protect the word "is," not to replace it.
I also fear we are about to begin going around in circles.
Pastor, I agree absolutely with Gerhard. That is my point. The Personal Union and the Sacramental Union are not the same thing. The "in, with, and under" formula is the definition of the sacramental union. By my using it, I am saying no more or less than what the Confessors said.
Please, explain how I am rejecting the Sacramental Union by what I have written. Please do not just tell me "this is what you are saying sounds like".
@justusetpeccator1 "Is," is the definition of the Sacramental Union. That is the Word from Scripture, not to mention the Confessions. To use "in, with and under" to accuse a Christian of heresy for faith in the Word "is," and for the belief that faith in the Words is the true worship of God, you are very much saying more *and* less than the Confessors said.
We are very much going in circles. For that reason, I am closing the thread to new comments. I am saddened by this fact.
@justusetpeccator1 It is my contention that Lutherans worship Jesus. It is also my contention:
...that "faith is that worship which receives the benefits that God offers." AP IV 49
...that "this is how God wants to become known and worshiped, namely, that we receive blessings from him...on account of his mercy and not on account of our merits." AP IV 60
...that "sacraments are to be used so that faith, which believes the promises offered...through the sacraments, may increase." AP VIII 36
@Revfiskj I should also add that these quotations are not an attempt to avoid the question, but to answer it as clearly and without discrepancy as possible. These quotations are, in fact and in truth, the entire point I have been and am trying to make.
Absolute, one-way, undeserving, free gift Grace can be so offensive. Great video. If God chooses to save humanity on a Cross, I'm sure he can deliver it to us by whatever means he chooses, including bread/wine on a Sunday morning or water. Its my short experience that many in other persuasions see communion as a work, us making sure we are "right" with God before taking it and they forget it is God's gift for us.
Your statement regarding Lutherans worshiping bread and wine is wrong.
"1016.126 – FC SD VII.126 – “We reject and condemn … the teaching that the elements (the visible forms of the blessed bread and wine) are to be adored."
@justusetpeccator1 "Of course, no one - except an Arian heretic - can or will deny that Christ himself, true God and true human, who is truly and essentially present in the Supper when properly used, should be adored in Spirit and Truth in all other places, but especially in where his community is assembled" [ie around the Sacrament.] 126b
The condemnation is of Rome, and it's idolatry, not of faithful recognition of the presence of God. True worship is to believe the Words of Christ.
Romans 9:22 says that God "endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had AFORE prepared unto glory;
If the elect were prepared BEFORE; then this "fitting for destruction" must be to the seed of Adam, AFTER the fall. All of us were Adam's seed, yet only God's sons, thru the Word, were predestined. The lost are the seed of free will and disobedience alone. Why blame God. +++
Romans 9:22 says that God "endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had AFORE prepared unto glory;
If the elect were prepared BEFORE; then this "fitting for destruction" must be to the seed of Adam, AFTER the fall. All of us were Adam's seed, yet only God's sons, thru the Word, were predestined. The lost are the seed of free will and disobedience alone. Why blame God. +++
I wish I had the space & time to enumerate the # of errors, caricatures, & falsehoods made in just 13-minutes. What was the most breathtaking to me was how willing you are w/the wave of the hand to dismiss a biblical and theological outlook that has a corpus of writing and galaxy of thinkers 500 years long. Calvin, Knox, and other Reformers and their theological outlook essentially founded our country and were instrumental in providing you with the freedoms you now enjoy. more to come...
@vintnerman A 13 minute video hardly lends itself to much more than a quick brush over the surface. I am sure RevFisk was not intending to just wave it away. My question was rather broad and he had only a relatively short time to deal with a discussion that has had entire chapters, if not books, written to deal with each topic. I am sure he neither meant any disrespect nor to push any subject aside as if it was not a topic worthy of much thoughtful reflection and study.
love your videos; I want to help you with typos (I think they are typos): isn't it "magisterial", not "magesterial"? Also, during your segment on predestination you have a text-graphic that misspells the word "damned" (looked like simple transposition). Thanks again for your work! The Lord be with you!
However Lutherans don't speak of "Total Depravity" in the same way that Calvinists do. In fact, it's kind of weird when a Lutheran uses this phrase... it's like a German eating lefse. While, as Lutherans, we reject Arminius's emphasis of our "free will" and our ability to do good, we will not speak of our anthropology as that we are in essence sinful (else Christ's incarnation was incomplete... or he was a sinner), rather we say that our "sinful nature" is a corruption of God's good creation.
@tutal Yes. I guess I've never heard a Calvinist actually say that "total depravity" means that our created essence is evil as substance. Certainly, our confessions condemn such teaching, and for good reason. However, equally so, we recognize that it is a philosophical distinction and one we cannot make in practice. The corruption is so deep that there is no separating it from our nature, but through the imputation of Christ, which brings death and resurrection.
Most helpful video yet. I lean heavily on reason in ordinary pedestrian matters, however am convinced by reason that reason itself is insufficient for understanding my faith. I actually find my Christian friends harder to communicate with than my rationalistic atheist friends, yet my faith is far more important to me than reason. I can't really understand why that is, but it is. Thanks again.
@rationalmaterialist Our faith is highly reasonable on a great many levels. It is not a blind faith. It is rooted in history, proof, and the physical resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. However, there are limits to our reason. Reason then serves the revelation, but is not made King. :)
Great Video. Thank you Rev. Fisk. As a newly converted Lutheran (8 months), I wholeheartedly said "Amen" to all your statements about Calvinism. However, I am not sure I understand why you said that Lutherans worship bread and wine.
@0MusicaL0 Because we do! :) It's just as offensive as the scandalous truth that we worship a human being. We worship *Jesus*. The bread and wine *are* Jesus.
Of course, the way we worship the bread and wine is to eat it (him,) because that's what he has commanded us to do. By faith, we believe his promises, which is the highest form of worship, because Biblical worship is about *receiving.* This is hard for Protestants to grasp, since for them worship is something you do for God. pax!
Hey I'm a Cavlinist. Great video! you've answered some of my questions as well.
Here's another one.
Great point about how we should consider you heretics on the communion issue (I still don't :) ) but if you believe you're saved because you eat bread and wine, and we do not believe that, wouldn't that make us unsaved by your theology?
Just thinking as I'm watching. Again, great video. I might bring up a few things I consider problems in it... but another time.
@leslanfear Do you not eat the bread and wine? Are you not baptized? Walther says it best: "Undoubtedly there are also among the sects a great many beloved children of God who have favor with him and will be saved. But...they will be saved ...only by this, that they find no rest in all this and at last strip themselves naked and bare before God and confide only in the Word of grace." The Lord's Supper is not the only means of grace. But yes, you are weakened and susceptible for your "heresy."
For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Heb10.
A question then Rev Fisk. In trying to -not- to look at myself, is it okay to say "The fact that I take the Lords supper and look to (not away from) my baptism shows that I welcome and do not spurn the Son of God"?
@antsterr3 I suppose, yes. You're still caught in the reformed trap of "faith trying to see it's own fruits." Faith doesn't look at faith or the fruits. Faith looks at the Seed, the Root, the Waterer. Whenever the equation is back to, "I know because I..." you are on weak ground. "I know because I am baptized" is different because it is not an active statement. It is entirely passive. "I know because God *said so.*"
Thank you, Pastor. That question could have been asked by me because it is almost exactly where I am. If your church were just a little bit closer than the hour away that it is, I am pretty sure I would be Lutheran by now ;-)
You know Pastor, we've listened to this twice, second time I looked away from the screen so I could concentrate on what you were saying. God is so good, my sin is so bad, His grace for me (and my family) is so sure, it's so sad, Christ did all this for us, why would any human ever want to change any of this?
It really truly is a blessing to just say "I don't know." I need God to be so much more than me. Seems like the pride involved in saying "I can figure God out" sets one up for an incredible fall. Thanks Pastor.
A great opportunity to bring up a quote credited to Pastor Luther, "...grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you." I believe this was in the context of explaining a 6-day creation (as opposed to those who actually couldn't understand why it took so LONG to create!).
@mcguire162 You know, I read Arminius for a side project at the Sem, and came to the same conclusion. Even wrote a paper on it, and the prof (who'd never read Arminius) accepted my conclusions. But then, as I have told people that over the years, they were always so skeptical, so I guess I started to assume I was just too new to theology and mistaken at the time. Your rebuke is well taken!
I think we can still say we disagree with "Arminianism," even if it is poorly and unfairly named!
@Revfiskj if you just add a quick caveat, it's still basically right... Arminius would say man's will is capable of choosing salvation for himself, because of God's universal prevenient grace.
Arminianism would agree with Lutherans and Calvinists that natural man can't make that decision, but then erases the statement by saying nobody IS that natural man... because we all have the same amount of prevenient, enabling, and resistible grace bestowed upon us.
RevFisk, awesome video once again! I've seen Calvinists "explain away" John 3:16 by saying "world" could just mean "all believers". Haven't ever seen one successfully handle 1 John 2:2 - "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and NOT ONLY for ours but ALSO for the sins of the whole world".
Also gotta love 2 Peter 2:1 "[The false teachers] will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought THEM." Huh? The Lord bought false teachers? ;)
LOL this is brilliant. I am one of those stuck in between... I love you guys.
terriergal 1 year ago
As a former Baptist Calvinist, this is the best explanation/comparison of the two approaches to the topic of salvation/predestination I have ever seen. Thank you. The Lutheran understanding (Biblical understanding) was a great joy to me when "I discovered" (hah, me? no) it 17 years ago. Randy
shieldwolflutheran 1 year ago
Absolute VINTAGE Revfiskj! This one is going to be used in catechesis...
jcnaumann 1 year ago
Thanks for all the comments! Time to close. Go read your confessions instead of this thread! :)
Revfiskj 1 year ago 2
@Revfiskj Thank you for your time Pastor. I do not deny Christ's word *is*, and I too am saddened that I can't get this across to you. May God bless your work in the Holy Ministry.
Thanks.
justusetpeccator1 1 year ago
Regarding the "worship" of bread and wine. The issue our confessions condemn, is really not the elements, but the Eucharistic adoration that occurs of the consecrated elements apart from their instituted use (ie a Corpus Christi procession). To try dividing out Christ's presence from the elements He is present in gets really close to the same error as Nestorius. When I distribute I say "This is the body of Christ", that which I hold/give ought be adored through eating as Christ instituted.
tutal 1 year ago
1:45 to 1:52 is so funny...and so true! Hilarious and OMGosh that dancing guy at 1:19 wow.
CraigDruckrey 1 year ago
@j&p It sounds like your contention is that the bread and wine *is not* Jesus' body and blood. Is this truly your contention?
Revfiskj 1 year ago
@Revfiskj Yes, that is what I confess. Bread is not changed into His body, and wine is not changed into His blood. I confess that in the Holy Supper, the true, natural, body and blood of Christ Jesus is truly, and essentially, present in, with, and under the bread and wine. Both, the faithful, and unbelieving communicants physically receive, and ingest, the true body and blood; believers receiving Gods' gracious forgiveness, and unbelievers eating and drinking to their condemnation.
justusetpeccator1 1 year ago
@justusetpeccator1 So you deny Jesus words' "This is my body" carry the weight of their clear, plain meaning? I'm trying to make certain I understand you. It sounds to me that you believe in "consubstantiation," rather than in the Sacramental union. But I may be misunderstanding you. I find it odd that you will confess so much, but will deny the actual words of Scripture: "is." That is the word that shall not be moved by heaven or earth.
Revfiskj 1 year ago
@Revfiskj Please see my post below. I must have been writing it while you posted.
justusetpeccator1 1 year ago
@Revfiskj No, I do not deny Jesus' words. I believe you may have a different definition of consubstantiation. I know that Scaer defines it as trying to keep the two elements apart, but I have never heard that definition before. The Cristian Cyclopedia (correctly, I believe) defines it as I have below. Please see the entry on the LCMS site.
justusetpeccator1 1 year ago
@Revfiskj I confess only what is shown to be true by the Scriptures. I accept the BOC because it is a true exposition of the Scriptures.
justusetpeccator1 1 year ago
This is the true Christian faith. One would search the BOC in vain trying to find where it teaches anything different than this.
Years back, catechumens were taught; Rome says it is body and blood only (Transubstantiation), the Reformed says it is only bread and wine , but the Lutheran says it is all four. (Real Presence)
Nor do Lutherans believe, as has been falsely charged to them, in consubstantiation (the belief that the bread/body, wine/blood are combined into one substance)
justusetpeccator1 1 year ago
@justusetpeccator1 Ah...we do have differing definitions of consubstantiation. Wikipedia agrees with Dr. Scaer, as do I.
I'll stick with the Word "is," and with Luther: "Here two things have become one; I would call that a Sacramental Union, because Christ's body and the bread are there given us as a Sacrament." Quoted by Pieper VIII, p. 363.
You assert in vain that my position is contra the confessions. "But if the Words remain...the elements are truly the body and blood of Christ." LC V 14
Revfiskj 1 year ago
Pastor, I'm happy to hear that!
Yes, we worship Jesus by eating and drinking His body and blood which is truly, and essentially present in, with, and under the bread and wine (which are also present). But, this should never be understood as worshiping bread and wine.
Lutherans do indeed worship Jesus; and because Jesus is true God, and also true man, it is true that we worship a human. But, this formula does not hold for the Sacrament. The personal union is not the same as the sacramental union.
justusetpeccator1 1 year ago 7
@justusetpeccator1 It sounds like your contention is that the bread and wine *is not* Jesus' body and blood. Is this truly your contention?
Revfiskj 1 year ago
@justusetpeccator1 Jesus' body is in the bread, and Jesus' blood is in the wine. Concomitance was taught by Rome, that the whole body, blood and person of Christ, are all present in the Eucharist. Scripture makes no claim.
The whole person of Christ, or Jesus' "power" coming into us is not the focus. The power is in the forgiveness of sins, by partaking of the exact same body and blood sacrificed for us, by our High Priest, not to worship, but eat.
I would worship His toenail though.
robbourassaguitarist 1 year ago
@justusetpeccator1 Natural, personal and sacramental: "These three kinds of unions must be spoken about and dealt with separately. Also, one must not be set against the other, or one rejected because of another." J Gerhard
I'm afraid it sounds to me as if you reject the Sacramental union, and that you use the phrase "in, with and under" in order to do so. The phrase is meant to protect the word "is," not to replace it.
I also fear we are about to begin going around in circles.
Revfiskj 1 year ago
@Revfiskj I hope not!!:)
Pastor, I agree absolutely with Gerhard. That is my point. The Personal Union and the Sacramental Union are not the same thing. The "in, with, and under" formula is the definition of the sacramental union. By my using it, I am saying no more or less than what the Confessors said.
Please, explain how I am rejecting the Sacramental Union by what I have written. Please do not just tell me "this is what you are saying sounds like".
justusetpeccator1 1 year ago
@justusetpeccator1 "Is," is the definition of the Sacramental Union. That is the Word from Scripture, not to mention the Confessions. To use "in, with and under" to accuse a Christian of heresy for faith in the Word "is," and for the belief that faith in the Words is the true worship of God, you are very much saying more *and* less than the Confessors said.
We are very much going in circles. For that reason, I am closing the thread to new comments. I am saddened by this fact.
Revfiskj 1 year ago
Pastor Fisk,
Is it really your contention that Lutherans worship the consecrated bread and wine?
justusetpeccator1 1 year ago
@justusetpeccator1 It is my contention that Lutherans worship Jesus. It is also my contention:
...that "faith is that worship which receives the benefits that God offers." AP IV 49
...that "this is how God wants to become known and worshiped, namely, that we receive blessings from him...on account of his mercy and not on account of our merits." AP IV 60
...that "sacraments are to be used so that faith, which believes the promises offered...through the sacraments, may increase." AP VIII 36
Revfiskj 1 year ago
"Through these, as through means, he gives the Holy Spirit who produces faith, where and when he wills, in those who hear to the Gospel." AC V
"God will regard and reckon this faith as righteousness." AC IV
We "thoroughly refute all the babbling of the seditious spirits who, contrary to the Word of God, regard the sacraments as something we do." LC V 7
God bless!
Revfiskj 1 year ago
@Revfiskj I should also add that these quotations are not an attempt to avoid the question, but to answer it as clearly and without discrepancy as possible. These quotations are, in fact and in truth, the entire point I have been and am trying to make.
Revfiskj 1 year ago
Martin Luther: "Unless I am convinced by Scripture and by plain reason and not by Popes and councils who have so often contradicted themselves..."
just sayin'....
uhgustin 1 year ago 3
@uhgustin
Exactly. Scripture first. Then plain reason.
Revfiskj 1 year ago
Another thought... if the finite cannot contain the infinite, Lutherans are among the worst heretics for singing st. 6 of Glory Be to Jesus:
Lift ye then your voices;
swell the mighty flood;
louder still and louder
praise the precious blood.
...well that and confessing the incarnation.
tutal 1 year ago
Stephen Colbert = WIN
MvMatYourService 1 year ago
Yo Rev.. would love your thoughts on this article in terms of Limited Atonement and many of your arguments against..
For some reason youtube won't let me post a link.. hrmmm
L I G O N E R . O R G -- Search for ""For God so loved the world" by Tom Ascol
btw.. I really digg your stuff..
BlendahTom 1 year ago
Yo Rev.. would love your thoughts on this article in terms of Limited Atonement and many of your arguments against..
For some reason youtube won't let me post a link.. hrmmm
L I G O N E R . O R G -- Search for ""For God so loved the world" by Tom Ascol
btw.. I really digg your stuff..
BlendahTom 1 year ago
Good job! One of my members sent this to me...........Rev. Ernie V. Lassman, Messiah Lutheran Church............Seattle
nschaub 1 year ago
Absolute, one-way, undeserving, free gift Grace can be so offensive. Great video. If God chooses to save humanity on a Cross, I'm sure he can deliver it to us by whatever means he chooses, including bread/wine on a Sunday morning or water. Its my short experience that many in other persuasions see communion as a work, us making sure we are "right" with God before taking it and they forget it is God's gift for us.
bubbaburke 1 year ago
LOL! GREAT video!
LadyTerj121 1 year ago
Rev. Fisk,
Your statement regarding Lutherans worshiping bread and wine is wrong.
"1016.126 – FC SD VII.126 – “We reject and condemn … the teaching that the elements (the visible forms of the blessed bread and wine) are to be adored."
justusetpeccator1 1 year ago
@justusetpeccator1 "Of course, no one - except an Arian heretic - can or will deny that Christ himself, true God and true human, who is truly and essentially present in the Supper when properly used, should be adored in Spirit and Truth in all other places, but especially in where his community is assembled" [ie around the Sacrament.] 126b
The condemnation is of Rome, and it's idolatry, not of faithful recognition of the presence of God. True worship is to believe the Words of Christ.
Revfiskj 1 year ago
Romans 9:22 says that God "endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had AFORE prepared unto glory;
If the elect were prepared BEFORE; then this "fitting for destruction" must be to the seed of Adam, AFTER the fall. All of us were Adam's seed, yet only God's sons, thru the Word, were predestined. The lost are the seed of free will and disobedience alone. Why blame God. +++
robbourassaguitarist 1 year ago
Romans 9:22 says that God "endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had AFORE prepared unto glory;
If the elect were prepared BEFORE; then this "fitting for destruction" must be to the seed of Adam, AFTER the fall. All of us were Adam's seed, yet only God's sons, thru the Word, were predestined. The lost are the seed of free will and disobedience alone. Why blame God. +++
robbourassaguitarist 1 year ago
can you get out your swords and use them in an episode? Please?
nattybreck 1 year ago 3
@nattybreck ya, that would be awesome!!!
pujolspals 1 year ago
@nattybreck ya, that would be awesome!!!
pujolspals 1 year ago
@nattybreck Ya you should!!
pujolspals 1 year ago
To be God or to let God be God. That is the question.
wolkristen 1 year ago
To be God or to let God be God. That is the question.
wolkristen 1 year ago
I wish I had the space & time to enumerate the # of errors, caricatures, & falsehoods made in just 13-minutes. What was the most breathtaking to me was how willing you are w/the wave of the hand to dismiss a biblical and theological outlook that has a corpus of writing and galaxy of thinkers 500 years long. Calvin, Knox, and other Reformers and their theological outlook essentially founded our country and were instrumental in providing you with the freedoms you now enjoy. more to come...
vintnerman 1 year ago
Comment removed
corsec144 1 year ago
@vintnerman A 13 minute video hardly lends itself to much more than a quick brush over the surface. I am sure RevFisk was not intending to just wave it away. My question was rather broad and he had only a relatively short time to deal with a discussion that has had entire chapters, if not books, written to deal with each topic. I am sure he neither meant any disrespect nor to push any subject aside as if it was not a topic worthy of much thoughtful reflection and study.
corsec144 1 year ago
@vintnerman facepalm
sgoodr 1 year ago
certainly!
kurtwinrich 1 year ago
love your videos; I want to help you with typos (I think they are typos): isn't it "magisterial", not "magesterial"? Also, during your segment on predestination you have a text-graphic that misspells the word "damned" (looked like simple transposition). Thanks again for your work! The Lord be with you!
kurtwinrich 1 year ago
@kurtwinrich Thx. Yeah. *sigh*. Sadly, there is no fixing it now. That's what you get when you put on of these things together in a day. Forgive me?
Revfiskj 1 year ago
However Lutherans don't speak of "Total Depravity" in the same way that Calvinists do. In fact, it's kind of weird when a Lutheran uses this phrase... it's like a German eating lefse. While, as Lutherans, we reject Arminius's emphasis of our "free will" and our ability to do good, we will not speak of our anthropology as that we are in essence sinful (else Christ's incarnation was incomplete... or he was a sinner), rather we say that our "sinful nature" is a corruption of God's good creation.
tutal 1 year ago
@tutal Yes. I guess I've never heard a Calvinist actually say that "total depravity" means that our created essence is evil as substance. Certainly, our confessions condemn such teaching, and for good reason. However, equally so, we recognize that it is a philosophical distinction and one we cannot make in practice. The corruption is so deep that there is no separating it from our nature, but through the imputation of Christ, which brings death and resurrection.
Revfiskj 1 year ago
Most helpful video yet. I lean heavily on reason in ordinary pedestrian matters, however am convinced by reason that reason itself is insufficient for understanding my faith. I actually find my Christian friends harder to communicate with than my rationalistic atheist friends, yet my faith is far more important to me than reason. I can't really understand why that is, but it is. Thanks again.
rationalmaterialist 1 year ago
@rationalmaterialist Our faith is highly reasonable on a great many levels. It is not a blind faith. It is rooted in history, proof, and the physical resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. However, there are limits to our reason. Reason then serves the revelation, but is not made King. :)
Revfiskj 1 year ago
Comment removed
0MusicaL0 1 year ago
Great Video. Thank you Rev. Fisk. As a newly converted Lutheran (8 months), I wholeheartedly said "Amen" to all your statements about Calvinism. However, I am not sure I understand why you said that Lutherans worship bread and wine.
0MusicaL0 1 year ago
@0MusicaL0 Because we do! :) It's just as offensive as the scandalous truth that we worship a human being. We worship *Jesus*. The bread and wine *are* Jesus.
Of course, the way we worship the bread and wine is to eat it (him,) because that's what he has commanded us to do. By faith, we believe his promises, which is the highest form of worship, because Biblical worship is about *receiving.* This is hard for Protestants to grasp, since for them worship is something you do for God. pax!
Revfiskj 1 year ago
Hey I'm a Cavlinist. Great video! you've answered some of my questions as well.
Here's another one.
Great point about how we should consider you heretics on the communion issue (I still don't :) ) but if you believe you're saved because you eat bread and wine, and we do not believe that, wouldn't that make us unsaved by your theology?
Just thinking as I'm watching. Again, great video. I might bring up a few things I consider problems in it... but another time.
leslanfear 1 year ago
@leslanfear Do you not eat the bread and wine? Are you not baptized? Walther says it best: "Undoubtedly there are also among the sects a great many beloved children of God who have favor with him and will be saved. But...they will be saved ...only by this, that they find no rest in all this and at last strip themselves naked and bare before God and confide only in the Word of grace." The Lord's Supper is not the only means of grace. But yes, you are weakened and susceptible for your "heresy."
Revfiskj 1 year ago
On the topic of 'P'
For those who spurn the son of God:
For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Heb10.
A question then Rev Fisk. In trying to -not- to look at myself, is it okay to say "The fact that I take the Lords supper and look to (not away from) my baptism shows that I welcome and do not spurn the Son of God"?
antsterr3 1 year ago
@antsterr3 I suppose, yes. You're still caught in the reformed trap of "faith trying to see it's own fruits." Faith doesn't look at faith or the fruits. Faith looks at the Seed, the Root, the Waterer. Whenever the equation is back to, "I know because I..." you are on weak ground. "I know because I am baptized" is different because it is not an active statement. It is entirely passive. "I know because God *said so.*"
Revfiskj 1 year ago
@Revfiskj @ansterr3
Just recently I was reminded, "I know I am saved because... JESUS died for me." Thank God it's not because of anything I do (do-do) ;)
myt4truss 1 year ago
The Lutheran knows how to shrug.
Preachrboy 1 year ago
Thank you, Pastor. That question could have been asked by me because it is almost exactly where I am. If your church were just a little bit closer than the hour away that it is, I am pretty sure I would be Lutheran by now ;-)
cptranman 1 year ago
Good stuff!! I'm always listening intently on this comparison.
"I want to throw up." stop there.
insitoo 1 year ago
Thanks for answering my question, RevFisk!
corsec144 1 year ago
As a former Calvinist of Calvinists who is now an LCMS vicar, this video nails it. Thanks!
andypacman 1 year ago
You know Pastor, we've listened to this twice, second time I looked away from the screen so I could concentrate on what you were saying. God is so good, my sin is so bad, His grace for me (and my family) is so sure, it's so sad, Christ did all this for us, why would any human ever want to change any of this?
Steve
horngal88 1 year ago
This is a HUGE help in my understanding. Thank you!!
misterh1 1 year ago
It really truly is a blessing to just say "I don't know." I need God to be so much more than me. Seems like the pride involved in saying "I can figure God out" sets one up for an incredible fall. Thanks Pastor.
horngal88 1 year ago
@horngal88
A great opportunity to bring up a quote credited to Pastor Luther, "...grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you." I believe this was in the context of explaining a 6-day creation (as opposed to those who actually couldn't understand why it took so LONG to create!).
myt4truss 1 year ago
@mcguire162 You know, I read Arminius for a side project at the Sem, and came to the same conclusion. Even wrote a paper on it, and the prof (who'd never read Arminius) accepted my conclusions. But then, as I have told people that over the years, they were always so skeptical, so I guess I started to assume I was just too new to theology and mistaken at the time. Your rebuke is well taken!
I think we can still say we disagree with "Arminianism," even if it is poorly and unfairly named!
Revfiskj 1 year ago
@Revfiskj if you just add a quick caveat, it's still basically right... Arminius would say man's will is capable of choosing salvation for himself, because of God's universal prevenient grace.
Arminianism would agree with Lutherans and Calvinists that natural man can't make that decision, but then erases the statement by saying nobody IS that natural man... because we all have the same amount of prevenient, enabling, and resistible grace bestowed upon us.
leslanfear 1 year ago
RevFisk, awesome video once again! I've seen Calvinists "explain away" John 3:16 by saying "world" could just mean "all believers". Haven't ever seen one successfully handle 1 John 2:2 - "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and NOT ONLY for ours but ALSO for the sins of the whole world".
Also gotta love 2 Peter 2:1 "[The false teachers] will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought THEM." Huh? The Lord bought false teachers? ;)
kalathetrumpeter 1 year ago 7
@kalathetrumpeter *thumbs up*
Revfiskj 1 year ago
Prepare for an onslaught from the "Truly Reformed" -- the Calvinist pitt bulls. They almost make feisty Lutherans look tame.
: )
ptmccain 1 year ago
@ptmccain *sighs*
Revfiskj 1 year ago
Amen! Thank you!
TheTbonist 1 year ago
man, i really wish i'd paid more attention in my confirmation class...
loofrin 1 year ago