Reformation History Session 2: Ulrich Zwingli

So, everyone got a handout, right? So, hopefully that'll be helpful as we talk through the class.

! Just as a kind of a warning, I don't know if that's the right word, but we're going to talk definitely more about theology,

particular theological topics, and getting into the weeds of them. And so, a little less history, a little bit more theology,

but I think you'll see why we need to talk about these things.

Are you referring?

I am. Thanks for asking.

So, Zwingli, he was born on New Year's Day in 1484, just a couple months before Luther, actually.

And he's born in a village in the Swiss Alps, so he's from Switzerland.

He comes from a peasant family that actually clawed their way out of poverty.

So, with Ehrlich Sr., he's his dad, he becomes a respective village leader.

Come on in. Take a handout. Take a handout. Come on in, guys.

Come on in. Find a seat. There's some over here.

Just sit this way.

Please.

Tyler, right?

Yeah.

Good seeing you. Thanks for coming.

We're just getting started, so you don't miss anything.

So, Ehrlich Sr., he becomes a respected village leader and a magistrate.

And if you were here last week, you remember how Luther's parents wanted him to become a secular lawyer

so that he can come back to the family business and serve that business and help his family.

But Zwingli's parents actually aren't like that at all.

They actually wanted Zwingli to become a priest from the get-go.

And so, with their status, with their money, they arranged for Zwingli to receive a really good education.

They sent him to the best of schools.

And almost immediately as he's studying from a young age,

it becomes very quickly apparent that he's exceptionally bright.

He's a really good student.

While at the University of Vienna for his bachelor's degree,

he was specifically trained to become a humanist.

So, Sean actually talked about the word humanist,

and I'm using that word differently, right?

So, does anyone know what humanism is in the Renaissance?

Do you know, Julia?

I feel like you would probably know.

Do you know?

Is it, like, kind of based off utilitarianism, but in a way, like, for human force?

That's one aspect that Sean just talked about today.

Yeah.

I think in the medieval times, they used it a little bit differently.

Okay.

Yeah.

Do you know?

Yeah?

It was, like, emphasizing people and, like, turning to individual intelligence,

rather than seeing, like, from the lens of, like, Christianity or faith.

Yeah, yeah, for sure.

And especially turning inward and emphasizing learning,

their particular thing was emphasizing their motto in Latin called ad fontes,

which was just in English, back to the sources.

So, a humanist was someone who was keen on always turning back to the original source.

So, they were keen on studying classical literature, studying the languages.

And so, you can kind of see how the Reformation is influenced a little bit by Christian humanism

because of their one, their main tenet, sola scriptura.

It takes on a humanist feel, like, let's get back to the original source.

Let's study the original Hebrew.

Let's study the original Greek.

And so, in Vienna, he becomes deeply influenced by this tradition.

And he studies very, very extensively the original languages, the Latin, the Greek, the Hebrew.

Zwingli actually becomes so good at Greek, and he teaches himself Greek, actually,

because he copies all of the New Testament by hand in Greek.

So, he forces himself to do that.

And so, that's how he learns the language.

It's himself.

And you're going to see how becoming proficient in the ancient languages

actually influences him and his preaching in the future.

So, we'll take a look at that.

After he's done with these studies, he becomes a Catholic priest in Glarus, Switzerland.

And he takes up, for the first time in his life, the mantle of pastor, and he shepherds his flock.

He serves that post for 10 years, from 1506 to 1516.

And it's actually in this period of his life that he commits some of the worst sins,

the gravest moral failures of his life.

We talked about last week how priests in the Catholic Church,

they were called to lifelong celibacy.

But the not-so-secret secret of the time was that, basically,

many of the priests didn't hold to that.

Instead, they would go around sleeping around with other women.

And Zwingli, one of the greatest figures of the Protestant Reformation,

wasn't any different from the priests at that time.

And he actually ends up fathering an illegitimate child

with the daughter of a local barber in those years.

I think, again, it's a stark reminder that no one who is worth mentioning in church history,

like a Luther, like a Zwingli, is spotless.

Everyone is sinless.

Everyone has dirt on their face.

They commit some grievous sexual sins.

And in the kindness of God, he uses people like them, too.

Hey, there's a handout right there for you.

That'll be helpful.

How do we know that Zwingli actually committed the sin?

It's actually an interesting story.

Zwingli himself confesses to this sin, this sexual sin,

by his own pen, by a letter he writes.

And then some 300 years later, a renowned Zwingli scholar,

Johannes Skoltes, that's his name,

he discovers this letter in which Zwingli confesses his sin.

He repents with great godly sorrow,

and he recommits himself to live a holy life.

But personally, for Skoltes, this is a really hard moment for him.

Why?

Because Zwingli was his spiritual hero.

He loved and respected Zwingli so much.

And so how could someone so influential, so godly, commit a grievous sin?

And so after much wrestling, he actually decides to burn this letter.

To burn this letter with a candle sitting on his desk so that he could cover up the sin,

so that no one else could hear about Zwingli's moral failures.

No one else could possibly be disillusioned by Zwingli.

And I think we can understand that kind of response too, right?

I don't know, maybe you've personally experienced this or know somebody

where you have a beloved pastor.

You have a woman that you love and respect,

who discipled you for years and years,

and you end up finding that they commit serious moral sins, grievous sins.

That shakes your faith.

And I think Skoltes is going through that experience.

But after about a quarter of the letter is burned,

Skoltes, he changes his mind.

He saves the letter.

He extinguishes the flames.

And he instead says, no,

Protestantism is in the truth of all circumstances.

He archives instead the letter.

He gives it to his assistants.

And he saves the letter so that everybody can read and know of what happened.

And we Christians, we can do this

because our hope, again, does not lie in sinful man,

but it lies in the perfect man of Jesus Christ,

the only man who could bear all the weight of all our hope and expectation.

Then in 1519, Zwingli was appointed the priest at Zurich.

Zurich, rather.

It's in that nation,

one of the most significant ecclesiological positions in the entire country.

It's a position of prominence,

of influence,

and it's really at this pastorate that the Swiss Reformation starts to kick off.

And how does it kick off?

The very first Sunday of his pastorate,

he'd go on to shock the entire congregation by his Sunday sermon,

his first Sunday sermon.

And what did he do that was so shocking?

What he does is that he opens up his Bible,

he starts in the book of Matthew,

and he preaches Matthew 1, 1.

Chapter 1, verse 1.

And then he continues to preach chapter by chapter,

verse by verse, line by line.

Again, I mean, that sounds normal to us

because that's what we do every Sunday, literally.

But back then, this was a revolutionary idea.

This was a revolutionary idea back then, right?

Because the Catholic churches,

what they were expected to do

was to follow the lectionary system.

They were hand-picked verses,

chapters from the papacy itself

to then all these other churches

were supposed to follow and preach.

Instead of doing that,

then he goes preaching through a book of the Bible,

and it's called Lectio Continua.

That's Latin, right?

And he's actually the first reformer

to ever start preaching like this.

And I want to talk a little bit about this, right?

We at Trinity preach like this too.

That's the main diet of how you're going to hear sermons.

Can you think about why?

Why is it important that we preach like this?

We preach verse by verse, line by line.

We go through passage by passage.

What do you guys think?

Yeah, for sure.

Just can't pick and choose.

Yep.

Yeah.

Exactly.

There's so much to that

that you could talk about, right?

You can't cherry pick

your favorite theological topics.

If you just want to talk about one particular thing,

then you could just always talk about that.

You can skip over the hard passages.

Right?

There are many passages

that when I've been assigned to Falls on My Week,

I'm like, man, this is a tough passage to preach.

Like, how am I going to preach this for 40, 50 minutes?

And always God gives me stuff to say.

And I know, Sean, it feels likewise.

But you can't pick and choose.

You can't ride your personal hobby horses.

More ideas on why it's important

that we preach expositionally, verse by verse.

So, Zwingli's preaching is very powerful.

Crowds come in droves

to then hear what he has to say

as he expounds the scriptural text week by week.

And, again, talked about this already,

but Zwingli studied the Greek New Testament.

He taught himself Greek.

And so, like I just said,

his preaching challenges more and more

of the established practices of the Catholic Church,

promoting things like sola scriptura,

the priesthood of all believers,

things that we talked about last week,

if you were here.

And, particularly, he goes against fasting regulations,

clerical celibacy, veneration of the saints,

and, particularly, the authority of the Bishop of Rome.

So, we're going to fly over those things.

But, in particular, one area of reform for Zwingli

is in the worship service.

It's kind of one of the big things that he decided to do.

And he comes up with the regulative principle of worship.

The regulative principle of worship.

Does anyone know what that means or what that is?

Has anyone heard of that?

So, this really becomes one of the hallmarks

of the Reformed tradition.

One of the key ideas of the Reformation,

really, is God is concerned with,

most concerned with what?

Is it humans?

Is it us?

Is it his church?

Is it creation?

He's concerned with all those things, of course.

But what he's most concerned with is his glory,

his own glory.

Right?

And so, if God is most concerned with his own glory,

then how we worship him,

how we glorify him,

how we honor him,

matters to God.

And so,

he sees that God has given instruction

in his scriptures on how,

guidelines on how we are to worship him.

Right?

The scriptures should regulate,

right?

The regulative principle.

The scriptures should regulate how we should worship

and what we should do when we gather for Sunday worship.

Right?

So, on the other hand of this,

right, you have the regulative principle of worship on one hand.

On the other hand is something called the normative principle of worship,

which holds that whatever scripture doesn't explicitly forbid,

then you are allowed to do.

Do you hear the difference?

It's quite different, actually.

So, one says,

I'm only going to do what scripture tells me to do.

The other says,

whatever scripture doesn't forbid,

doesn't tell me to do,

I can do.

And so, they would argue,

the normative guys,

they would argue that

as long as our worship is edifying,

it doesn't directly contradict a practice

that's explicitly forbidden in scripture,

it's then acceptable for us.

We could do it.

But there are particular problems,

I find,

with the normative principle,

our church would find,

it's because there's not a really strong internal filter

with the normative principle, right?

If anything not explicitly forbidden is permitted,

then where is the line?

Where does it stop, right?

You could maybe argue for dramas,

skits, movie clips, right?

Sunday service.

I don't know if you've ever been to a church like that.

But if, again, there's no line,

then why not a stand-up comedy set?

Why not a magic show?

What about a rock concert?

Scripture doesn't prohibit any of those things explicitly,

so, you know, that's all fair game.

But I think there needs to be some kind of line that's drawn, right?

And especially because the normative principle

doesn't have a strong internal filter,

I think it tends to import

whatever the surrounding culture

finds attractive at that time.

All right, so let's say comedy,

just harping on that,

is a big thing, I don't know.

So then we find, okay, that could work.

So let's use a comedy set.

Let's do this new innovative thing

in our church service.

And likewise, I think it's ultimately

promoting this idea of pragmatism.

We'll just do what works.

That's what ultimately will govern

what we do in Sunday service.

What works, what gets people in the door,

what gets money in our pockets, right?

I think there could be issues

with the normative principle.

So, looking at the regulative principle,

do you guys have,

I don't have your Bibles out.

You have your Bible.

Could you read Leviticus 10, 1-2 for us?

Just two verses.

Thanks, Daniel.

Yep.

Now, Nadav and Abihu, the sons of Naren,

each took his censure and put fire in it

and laid into the son of the unauthorized fire

to the Lord, which he had not come in.

And the fire came out from before the Lord,

and they died before the Lord.

Yeah.

So, I think this is like a classic example

of why people should hold

to the regulative principle of worship.

Right?

They offer, Nadav and Abihu,

they offer unauthorized strange fire.

But I think the key,

the phrasing of what Daniel just read

is important, right?

It doesn't say that God commanded them

not to do that.

But it says that God

had not commanded them to do so.

So, there's a difference there.

It's not that they're explicitly

rejecting an explicit command,

but it says that God

had not commanded them to do this.

So, hopefully you guys hear

the difference there.

So, Zwingli searches the scriptures,

and he finds that,

in his view,

that in the New Testament,

there is no instances

of instruments

that are being used during worship.

And so,

because he holds to this

regulative principle so strictly,

he actually strips his church

entirely of any instruments.

He rips out the organ,

right, from the building,

which is actually a shame

because apparently he was

quite the organist.

He was very talented.

And they keep their worship

strictly a cappella,

and they only sing through the psalms.

And there are churches today

that will do the same.

I don't know if you guys

have heard of that.

I think the OPC

will do that as well.

So, then the question comes,

why do we have instruments?

Why don't we just sing

through the psalms?

Sure.

Yeah, sure.

Why is,

was there a reason

why we said New Testament,

like,

obviously,

examples in the Old Testament

of instruments?

Yeah.

Why is that not

to answer?

Yeah.

Zwingli, in general,

he kind of has this

hermeneutic

that I think is flawed too,

where he tends to

lift up the New Testament

more than the Old Testament.

He kind of doesn't see

the Old Testament

as important.

And so,

he gives much more weight

to the New Testament,

which is a great question,

right?

Which is exactly

my pushback, right?

It is in Scripture,

right?

You see lyres and harps

and things like that.

People playing

musical instruments.

So,

why do we have instruments,

right?

Why don't we just,

why do we sing

sovereign grace songs,

right?

Assuming we would probably

have a heart attack

at the idea of singing

sovereign grace songs.

So,

a lot of Protestants

would distinguish

the elements,

what's called the elements,

from the circumstances

of worship.

There are two different

categories.

Elements are

the what of worship,

right?

The main building blocks

of worship

that we should have

because it's explicitly

prescribed in Scripture.

Things like prayer,

things like preaching,

things like singing.

Those are in Scripture

that we're commanded

to do.

The circumstances

are instead the how.

How do we do

those things?

And I think there's

a lot more flexibility

and freedom

in deciding

how we do

these things,

right?

Because Scripture

generally doesn't

actually teach us

exactly how

these things

need to be done,

right?

What time should we

worship?

What time should we

gather?

How long should our

service be?

Should it be two hours

or twelve hours?

Should we have AC?

Right?

Thank God for AC,

right?

Should we have AC?

Scripture doesn't

exactly say.

Should we have pews

or chairs or couches?

There are so many

different questions

that we need to

wrestle with.

I would consider

all those things

circumstances,

right?

Where we're able

to use our best

judgment,

use the God-given

wisdom to be able

to make the best

decision.

And of course

still try to be

as closely governed

and regulated

by Scripture

for those circumstances

too.

And so I think

specifically with the

issue of singing,

right?

I think within

the element

of singing

of musical

worship to the

Lord,

I think the

circumstance

of having

instrumental

accompaniment

is permissible.

That's our

view.

And so I think

we still hold

to the

regulative

principle.

Scripture is

still regulating,

it's outlining

how we worship,

but especially

because Scripture

doesn't give

the exact

details on

the circumstances,

then I think

we can have

a little bit

more flexibility

in that.

The same

year he's

installed as

a priest

in Zurich,

the entire

city is

actually struck

by a plague,

which many

historians believe

to be the

Black Plague,

which wiped

out tens

of millions

of people

across Europe.

Zurich was

no different.

It's a

terrible,

terrible disease,

high fevers,

boils,

severe abdominal

pain,

blackened

extremities

like toes

and your

nose would

become black,

your fingers.

This plague

incapacitated

people and

often killed

people within

one week

from catching

it.

But you see

Zwingli's

pastoral heart

when congregants

of his very

church,

they become

ill.

They're home

bed,

they're stuck

at home,

and while

many of

Zwingli's

loved ones

are telling

him,

don't go

to them,

don't go,

he nonetheless

still visits

their homes

to be able

to sing

worship,

to read

scripture,

to exhort

and encourage

them in

their faith.

Nothing

stops Zwingli

from being

able to

reach out

to them.

And maybe

some of us

can relate

to a little

thing called

COVID five,

six years

ago,

right?

Especially

we didn't

really know

how everything

would shake

out.

Would you

have gone

into the

houses of

those who

were infected

of COVID

when we

didn't know

what was

going on?

if you

thought it

was a

deadly

plague,

maybe you

disagree with

whether that

would be a

wise decision

for Zwingli

to go.

I think

that's a

fair discussion

for conversation.

But you

can't argue

that Zwingli

wasn't an

earnest,

sacrificial

pastor.

He loved

his flock

and he put

his life

on the

line.

And as

a big

surprise to

no one,

he then

contracts

the disease.

He contracts

the plague

and he becomes

quite sick.

But his

entire church,

seeing how

Zwingli,

he didn't

let anything

stop him

from going

out,

reaching out,

loving on

his flock,

they all

rally.

They all

rally behind

him in

prayer.

They pray

ceaselessly

for their

pastor and

Zwingli

miraculously

survives.

He heals.

It actually

takes him

three months

to recover.

He's just

in bed,

stuck in bed

for three

months,

but he does

eventually

fully recover

by God's

grace.

And historians

note that

this experience

really deepened

his sense

of divine

calling and

it deepened

his theological

convictions of

God's sovereignty.

We're not going

to talk a lot

about God's

sovereignty,

those things in

this seminar,

but it really

influences him

in a mighty,

mighty way.

And it seems

to be a key

moment in

shaping Zwingli,

particularly as

a reformer.

It all

comes to a

head,

coming back

to the

Reformation,

thinking about

the Swiss

Reformation,

three years

later in

1522,

an event,

what is called

the Affair

of the

Sausages.

It's an

affair,

it's a

sausage fest.

As Zwingli

is preaching

more and

more about

reformational

ideas,

he leads

his church

again to

this idea

of sola

scriptura,

that scripture

is the

ultimate

authority in

our lives.

Back then,

the church

only baptized

on Easter

Sunday,

and so in

preparation for

their baptism,

all catechumens,

all baptismal

candidates,

people who

are trying to

get baptized,

they were

required to

fast for

40 days,

which is

also what

we know as

Lent,

right?

They were

required to

fast,

and the

idea was

it was for

them to

be able to

cleanse

themselves,

to prove

themselves in

some sense

worthy of

their baptism,

and that

over time

you see that

practice slowly

but surely

be expanded

again to

this works

righteousness,

this Catholic

works righteousness

idea that

it's an

expression of

penance,

it's an

expression to

earn merit

before God,

you have to

fast for

Lent to

be able to

be worthy

for him on

Easter Sunday,

and so the

Catholic Church

actually bans

the eating of

any meat

at that time,

so during

Lent,

no meat was

allowed to be

eaten,

and just as a

side note,

again,

if you decide

to personally

fast for

Lent,

I think that's

great,

you're totally

free to

do so,

but I'd

warn you

not to

slip into

the Catholic

mindset,

the works

righteousness

mindset,

that fasting

is what's

going to

make you

acceptable

before God,

only again

the imputed

righteousness

of Christ,

the perfect

righteousness

that was

received by

faith,

that's what

makes you

acceptable.

So they

study the

scriptures,

they see

that Lent

is nowhere

in scripture,

this fasting

from meat

is nowhere

in scripture,

scripture,

and so

basically as

a PR

stunt,

a group of

Zwingli's

congregants,

they come

together,

and they

have this

deliberate

act of

protest by

throwing this

sausage fest,

they come

together,

and they

smoke a

bunch of

sausages,

bunch of

links,

and they

eat publicly.

Zwingli

actually doesn't

eat with

them,

but in a

sermon later,

he defends

this act,

and he

again claims

that the

Catholic

church is in

the wrong

here.

So it

seems like

a small

trivial act

of just

getting together

with your

buds and

eating sausages,

but this

small act

carried enormous

theological

weight,

and in

many ways

the affair

of the

sausages

is kind

of like

Zwingli's

95 theses,

it's like

his version

of it,

where it's

the first

time he

openly

challenges

the Catholic

church in

such a way

that the

church now

needs to

respond.

So they

have to

respond.

The bishop

of Constance's,

he condemns

this sausage

eating event,

and so in

response,

the Zurich

city

counselors,

the actual

city government,

they step

in and they

call for

public debates

in 1523.

In preparation

for these

debates,

Zwingli

drafts his

version of

the theses,

he drafts

67 theses,

which are

again like

Luther's

theses,

but only

that Zwingli's

is much

more broad

in theological

breadth and

much deeper

in theological

depth as

well.

Zwingli

debates

publicly

some

Catholic

representatives

that were

sent by

the church

on these

issues like

Sola Scriptura,

on issues

like Lent

and fasting,

and honestly

the contest

is a total

sham,

it's like a

total fixed

thing.

The city

counselors

already sided

with

Zwingli,

they were

the judges,

they already

sided with

Zwingli

before the

first words

were even

spoken.

For them

personally,

they're thinking

about money,

they're thinking

about power,

because enormous

amounts of

money is

flowing out

of Zurich

into Rome

at that time

through tithes,

through fees,

through indulgences,

ecclesiastical

taxes.

So siding

with Zwingli,

siding with

the Reformation

meant that they

could keep

that wealth

local,

they could keep

that power

internal.

So they

declare Zwingli

as the

leader,

and this

city,

the canton

of Zurich,

it officially

becomes

Protestant.

Back then

there was no

separation of

church and

state,

right?

So they

made it

officially

illegal to

teach Catholic

doctrine in

their city.

So they

remove images

of venerated

saints,

they reject

fasting laws,

they abolish

the mass,

you had to

become

Protestant

if you

were to

live in

Zurich.

So we're

going to

talk much

more in

depth about

some theological

topics given

Luther's,

Zwingli's

history.

So one of

the most

consequential

theological

controversies in

the Protestant

Reformation is

between Zwingli

and Luther.

Do you guys

know what he

argued?

Yeah,

yeah,

please.

We're going to

talk about

Zwingli and

Luther.

Do you guys

know what they

fought about?

Anyone know?

They had a

huge major

feud.

Something about

the communion.

Yeah,

exactly.

All about the

Lord's Supper.

And it ends

up getting

super,

super messy.

Luther says

some quite

harsh things

about Zwingli.

And as we

talk about the

Lord's Supper,

I think it

could be helpful

to outline the

four views of

the Lord's Supper.

Do you guys

happen to know

any of them?

Oh,

okay.

You do know

all of them.

Great.

Well,

you know,

transubstantiation

is the Roman

Catholic view.

It was and is

the Roman

Catholic view

that what they

argue is that

during the

Lord's Supper,

the bread and

wine,

it actually

physically becomes

the body and

blood of Jesus

Christ.

they're influenced

by Aristotle

and his

philosophical

pattern of

thought.

So Roman

Catholics,

when they

talk about

transubstantiation,

they have two

categories about

speaking about

something,

right?

And one

category is the

substance and

the other

category is

called the

accidents.

Accidents not

meaning like,

oopsie,

I messed up.

Like,

it's completely

different.

the substance

of things,

of something,

is the

essential reality,

the true nature

of a thing,

whereas the

accidents are

more the

outward properties

that could be

swapped,

could be changed

without actually

affecting the

substance of

that thing.

So it's a

little confusing,

but hopefully

this analogy

will help.

If you look

at me,

right,

what is my

substance?

I'm a human

being.

And I have

my accidents,

right,

that I'm

Asian,

I have

black hair,

I wear

glasses,

those are all

my outward

properties,

accidents.

If you were

to swap

any of those

things,

right,

if I dyed

my hair

blonde,

if I got

rid of my

glasses,

if I got

taller,

shorter,

whatever,

I would

still,

my substance

would still

be a human

being.

So that,

I think if I

were to dye

my hair,

that would

be something

called an

accidental

change.

Not again,

like,

oops,

I changed it,

but an

accidental

change,

an outward

change,

a superficial

change in

that sense.

But if you

had this

piece of

wood,

let's say,

and you

paint it

all red,

what would

that be?

That's still

an accidental

change,

right?

It's still a

piece of

wood,

but now let's

say you

burn it to

smithereens.

You have a

campfire,

you burn

it.

That would

be a

substantial

change,

because it's

no longer a

piece of

wood,

but it's

now smoke

and ash,

something like

that,

right?

So,

all that

background is

important,

because Catholics

believe that

when the

priest

consecrates

the bread

and wine,

both,

before they

do that,

rather,

the substance

and the

accidents,

they match

of just

ordinary bread

and wine.

But after he

consecrates it,

the accidents,

the things that

don't define a

particular thing,

it remains of

bread and wine.

It looks,

tastes,

smells like

bread and wine,

but the

substance,

it's a

substantial

change.

They argue

that the

substance of

that thing

is actually

the body and

blood of

Jesus Christ.

Do you guys,

are you guys

following me?

It's kind of

confusing,

but hopefully

that makes

sense.

So,

physically,

what you are

eating is

literally the

body of

Jesus Christ.

Physically,

what you are

drinking is

the blood of

Jesus Christ.

It might taste

like bread,

it might taste

like wine,

but you're

physically eating

Jesus'

blood,

body and

blood.

Right?

That's what

their understanding

of the Lord's

Supper is.

But the

reformers,

they push back

on this

doctrine heavily.

For one,

this is

Zwingli's

argument,

they argue

that this

really just

feels like

a philosophical

abstraction.

It's way

too complicated.

I don't know

if you guys

know the

acronym

KISS.

Do you

guys know

what that

is?

Keep

it

simple

stupid?

That's

essentially

Zwingli's

point.

Keep it

simple.

If it

tastes like

bread,

looks like

bread,

smells like

bread,

what is

it?

It's

bread.

It's

bread.

That's

what he

argues.

And then

also if you

think that it's

actually the

body and

blood of

Jesus Christ,

I think

inevitably

there's some

consequences to

that.

if it

actually

becomes

body and

blood,

then it

would only

be right

and appropriate

to then

worship this

piece of

bread,

to worship

this cup

of juice.

Whenever we

receive it,

we should

venerate it

with all

our hearts

and souls

and minds,

as Sean

just talked

about.

And this

is also

particularly

why the

church

actually

don't

allow the

laity,

the lay

people,

to drink

of the

wine back

then,

because

they're

kind of

condescending.

They thought

they were

uneducated.

They were

going to

mishandle

the wine

and just

essentially

spill it

and drop

it and

treat it

with not

enough

respect.

I think

oddly enough,

we have

kind of

the opposite

problem,

because we

just have

breadcrumbs

all over

the floor.

A good

Catholic

would have

a total

heart attack

seeing the

way that we

do communion.

So that's

a little bit

about transubstantiation.

Did I hear a

question?

No?

Okay.

The next

position on the

Lord's Supper

is Luther's

and it's

called

consubstantiation.

So consubstantiation

or real

physical

presence.

So Luther

rejects

transubstantiation,

maintaining that

the bread

and wine

do physically

remain

ordinary

bread and

wine.

But Luther

is insistent

on interpreting

Jesus'

words when he

says,

this is my

body.

He insists

that it needs

to be interpreted

literally.

And so he

rejects the

transubstantiation

view,

but he still

thinks it's

being literal.

So in order

to make sense

of all that,

he says that

Jesus is

physically

present in,

with,

under the

elements.

So con,

meaning with,

right?

With or in

this position.

He believes

that the bread

and wine,

they still

physically remain

bread and wine,

but Jesus'

body and

blood are

physically

present with

and in

them.

So,

again,

kind of a

confusing

position.

Is it like a

cow-toe?

Is it a piece

of Jesus

inside it?

I'm honestly

not sure of

the metaphysics

behind it,

you know.

It could be.

I think of it

as just that,

yeah,

Jesus is eaten

alongside

these elements.

Yeah.

What do you

mean by that?

The spirit,

like,

when you

receive Christ,

like,

he involves

us.

Yeah.

Yeah,

but he's

insistent on

it being a

physical

phenomenon,

whereas I

think that's

a spiritual

phenomenon.

And so,

again,

just to

explain a

little bit

of his

view,

this is

going to

get technical,

hopefully you

guys can

follow.

But Luther

and the

Lutheran

church today,

they follow

a very

unique

Christological

position in

order to

justify this

view of the

Lord's

Supper.

And so,

do you guys

know what

is the key

tenet in

Christology?

They're just

numbers.

Doctrine of

Christ.

Two

natures,

one person,

right?

That Jesus is

what?

Fully God,

fully man.

First time I

went to a

Bible study

in college,

a friend of

mine said,

Jesus is

half God,

half man.

I think that

actually might

have been my

best friend.

And I just

remember him

getting totally

chewed out.

Probably shouldn't

have gotten

chewed out,

but he did

get chewed

out.

And that's

the problem,

right?

He is two

natures.

He's fully

God,

fully man,

but he is

one person.

That's like the

key tenet of

all Christology,

and you'll see

that throughout

church history.

If you disagree

with any of

those things,

one nature,

one person,

that's a

heresy.

If you think

of two

natures,

two persons,

that's a

heresy.

It has to be

two natures,

one person.

And so,

you see this

idea,

two natures.

You have his

human nature,

his divine

nature.

Luther thinks

that his

divine

attributes,

particularly

omnipresence,

that God is

everywhere all

at once,

his divine

attributes from

his divine

nature can be

communicated to

his human

nature.

So,

it results in

this idea that

Christ's human

nature can be

ubiquitous,

can be everywhere

all at once,

omnipresent.

So,

that's how

they justified

this idea,

right?

Because I

think the

right idea is

that Jesus'

human nature

is just only

singularly located

in heaven,

right?

At the right

hand of the

Father.

But they

argue that

Jesus' human

nature is

actually

physically

everywhere,

which is why

they can then

say that

Jesus is

physically

along with

the elements

in thousands

of churches

on Sundays

where they're

all celebrating

the mass,

that he could

be everywhere

all at once.

The problem

with that view

is that if

you impart

divine attributes

to a human

nature,

what does

that human

nature become?

No longer

human,

right?

It loses

what makes

it distinctly

human.

So,

Calvin,

this is his

particular arm

and he presses

this hard.

After the

resurrection and

ascension,

Jesus'

human nature

is only

present at

the right

hand of

God and

his human

presence can

be physically

everywhere all

at once.

So,

hopefully that

argument made

sense.

Third,

you have

Zwingli's

position.

It is 2 o'clock.

You have

Zwingli's

position,

which is

called the

memorialist

view,

something that

Zwingli,

he adopts

this position

so that he

can buck

as far as

away,

he distanced

himself away

as far as

possible from

the Roman

Catholic view.

So,

he lands on

this and

he argues

that the

Lord's

Supper was

primarily and

only a

memorial.

It's just a

symbolic act

of remembrance.

And

Zwingli

observes that

Jesus himself

says,

do this in

remembrance of

me.

That's a key

fact of