Luther and Zwingle on the Lord’s Supper, part 1 of 4
What are the differences between the Lutheran and Reformed positions on the Lord’s Supper? Do you know? If you talk to Lutherans or people influenced by the Calvinist wing of the reformation, you should. I would also commend to you the pamphlets Bible Truths for Lutheran Friends and The Reformed Doctrine of Salvation to give to Lutherans and Reformed people to whom you preach the gospel, or with whom you work, or who are family, and so on.
The dialogue below between Luther, Zwingle, and a few other theologians who take their (respective) parts should be enlightening. Luther firmly holds that “This is my body” means that one literally eats Christ’s body in the Lord’s Supper, while Zwingle argues that one eats Christ spiritually in the Supper. The excerpt below is about the Marburg Colloquy of October 1529, quoting H. Merle D’Aubigné, History of the Reformation in the Sixteenth Century:
On Saturday morning (2d October) the landgrave took his seat in the hall, surrounded by his court, but in so plain a dress that no one would have taken him for a prince. He wished to avoid all appearance of acting the part of a Constantine in the affairs of the Church. Before him was a table which Luther, Zwingle, Melancthon, and Œcolampadius approached. Luther, taking a piece of chalk, bent over the velvet cloth which covered it, and steadily wrote four words in large characters. All eyes followed the movement of his hand, and soon they read Hoc est Corpus Meum. [“This is my body.”] Luther wished to have this declaration continually before him, that it might strengthen his own faith, and be a sign to his adversaries.
Behind these four theologians were seated their friends,—Hedio, Sturm, Funck, Frey, Eberhard, Thane, Jonas, Cruciger, and others besides. Jonas cast an inquiring glance upon the Swiss: “Zwingle,” said he, “has a certain rusticity and arrogance; if he is well versed in letters, it is in spite of Minerva and of the muses. In Œcolampadius there is a natural goodness and admirable meekness. Hedio seems to have as much liberality as kindness; but Bucer possesses the cunning of a fox, that knows how to give himself an air of sense and prudence.” Men of moderate sentiments often meet with worse treatment than those of the extreme parties. …
The landgrave’s chancellor, John Feige, having reminded them in the prince’s name that the object of this colloquy was the re-establishment of union, “I protest,” said Luther, “that I differ from my adversaries with regard to the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, and that I shall always differ from them. Christ has said, This is my body. Let them show me that a body is not a body. I reject reason, common sense, carnal arguments, and mathematical proofs. God is above mathematics. We have the Word of God; we must adore it and perform it!”
It cannot be denied,” said Œcolampadius, “that there are figures of speech in the Word of God; as John is Elias, the rock was Christ, I am the vine. The expression This is my body, is a figure of the same kind.” Luther granted that there were figures in the Bible, but denied that this last expression was figurative.
All the various parties, however, of which the Christian Church is composed see a figure in these words. In fact, the Romanists declare that This is my body signifies not only “my body,” but also “my blood,” “my soul,” and even “my Divinity,” and “Christ wholly.” These words, therefore according to Rome, are a synecdoche, a figure by which a part is taken for the whole. And, as regards the Lutherans, the figure is still more evident. Whether it be synecdoche, metaphor, or metonymy, there is still a figure.
In order to prove it, Œcolampadius employed this syllogism:—
“What Christ rejected in the sixth chapter of St. John, he could not admit in the words of the Eucharist.
“Now Christ, who said to the people of Capernaum, The flesh profiteth nothing, rejected by those very words the oral manducation of his body.
“Therefore he did not establish it at the institution of his Supper.”
Luther.—“I deny the minor (the second of these propositions); Christ has not rejected all oral manducation, but only a material manducation, like that of the flesh of oxen or of swine.”
Œcolampadius.—“There is danger in attributing too much to mere matter.”
Luther.—“Everything that God commands becomes spirit and life. If we lift up a straw, by the Lord’s order, in that very action we perform a spiritual work. We must pay attention to him who speaks, and not to what he says. God speaks: Men, worms, listen!—God commands: let the world obey! and let us altogether fall down and humbly kiss the Word.”
Œcolampadius.—“But since we have the spiritual eating, what need of the bodily one?”
Luther.—“I do not ask what need we have of it; but I see it written, Eat, this is my body. We must therefore believe and do. We must do—we must do!—If God should order me to eat dung, I would do it, with the assurance that it would be salutary.”
At this point Zwingle interfered in the discussion.
We must explain Scripture by Scripture,” said he, “We cannot admit two kinds of corporeal manducation, as if Jesus had spoken of eating, and the Capernaites of tearing in pieces, for the same word is employed in both cases. Jesus says that to eat his flesh corporeally profiteth nothing (John, 6:63); whence it would result that he had given us in the Supper a thing that would be useless to us.—Besides, there are certain words that seem to me rather childish,—the dung, for instance. The oracles of the demons were obscure, not so are those of Jesus Christ.”
Luther.—“When Christ says the flesh profiteth nothing, he speaks not of his own flesh, but of ours.”
Zwingle.—“The soul is fed with the Spirit and not with the flesh.”
Luther.—“It is with the mouth that we eat the body; the soul does not eat it.”
Zwingle.—“Christ’s body is therefore a corporeal nourishment, and not a spiritual.”
Luther.—“You are captious.”
Zwingle.—“Not so; but you utter contradictory things.”
Luther.—“If God should present me wild apples, I should eat them spiritually. In the Eucharist, the mouth receives the body of Christ, and the soul believes in his words.”
Zwingle then quoted a great number of passages from the Holy Scriptures, in which the sign is described by the very thing signified; and thence concluded that, considering our Lord’s declaration in St. John, The flesh profiteth nothing, we must explain the words of the Eucharist in a similar manner.
Many hearers were struck by these arguments. Among the Marburg professors sat the Frenchman Lambert; his tail and spare frame was violently agitated. He had been at first of Luther’s opinion, and was then hesitating between the two reformers. As he went to the conference, he said: “I desire to be a sheet of blank paper, on which the finger of God may write his truth.” Erelong he exclaimed, after hearing Zwingle and Œcolampadius: “Yes! the Spirit, ’tis that which vivifies.” When this conversion was known, the Wittembergers, shrugging their shoulders, called it “Gallic fickleness.” “What!” replied Lambert, “was St. Paul fickle because he was converted from Pharisaism? And have we ourselves been fickle in abandoning the lost sects of popery?”
–TDR
God’s Name Jehovah: What Does It Mean?
I thought that the classical statement below on the significance of the name Jehovah in the very helpful 17th century systematic theology The Christian’s Reasonable Service by Wilhemus á Brakel, theologian of the Dutch Nadere Reformatie or Further/Second Reformation, which was comparable to English Puritanism, was worth reprinting and thinking about. I have reproduced it from one of the appendixes of my essay on the inspiration of the Hebrew vowel points:
[I]t has pleased the Lord to give Himself a name by which He wishes to be called—a name which would indicate His essence, the manner of His existence, and the plurality of divine Persons. The name which is indicative of His essence is יְהוָֹה or Jehovah, it being abbreviated as יָהּ or Jah. The name which is indicative of the trinity of Persons is אֱלֹהִים or Elohim. Often there is a coalescence of these two words resulting in יֱהוִה or Jehovi. The consonants of this word constitute the name Jehovah, whereas the vowel marks produce the name Elohim. Very frequently these two names are placed side by side in the following manner: Jehovah Elohim, to reveal that God is one in essence and three in His Persons.
The Jews do not pronounce the name Jehovah. This practice of not using the name Jehovah initially was perhaps an expression of reverence, but later became superstitious in nature. In its place they use the name אֲדֹנָי or Adonai, a name by which the Lord is frequently called in His Word. Its meaning is “Lord.” When this word is used in reference to men, it is written with the letter patach, which is the short “a” vowel. When it is used in reference to the Lord, however, the letter kametz is used, which is the long “a” vowel. As a result all the vowels of the name Jehovah are present. To accomplish this the vowel “e” is changed into a chatef-patach which is the shortest “a” vowel, referred to as the guttural letter aleph. Our translators, to give expression to the name Jehovah, use the name Lord, which is similar to the Greek word kurios, the latter being a translation of Adonai rather than Jehovah. In Rev 1:4 and 16:5 the apostle John translates the name Jehovah as follows: “Him which is, and which was, and which is to come.” This one word has reference primarily to being or essence, while having the chronological connotation of past, present, and future. In this way this name refers to an eternal being, and therefore the translation of the name Jehovah in the French Bible is l’Eternel, that is, the Eternal One.
The name Jehovah is not to be found at all in the New Testament, which certainly would have been the case if it had been a prerequisite to preserve the name Jehovah in all languages. . . . Even though the transliteration of Hebrew words would conflict with the common elegance of the Greek language, it is nevertheless not impossible. Since they can pronounce the names Jesus, Hosanna, Levi, Abraham, and Hallelujah, they are obviously capable of pronouncing the name Jehovah. . . . Jehovah is not a common name, such as “angel” or “man”—names which can be assigned to many by virtue of being of equal status. On the contrary, it is a proper Name which uniquely belongs to God and thus to no one else, as is true of the name of every creature, each of which has his own name. (Wilhemus á Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, vol. 1, ed. Joel R. Beeke, trans. Bartel Elshout [Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 1992] 84-85)
May you be edified as you meditate upon Jehovah and His wonderful Name.
–TDR
The Tetragrammaton and the Incarnation–A Hebrew Connection?
George Sayles Bishop, contributor to The Fundamentals (George S. Bishop, Chapter IV: The Testimony of the Scriptures to Themselves, in The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, ed. R. A. Torrey, vol. 2 [Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2005], 80-96), defender of the inspiration and preservation of Scripture and opponent of higher criticism and secular lower criticism, and someone I cite in my papers on the history of the debate over the Hebrew vowel points and on the inspiration of the vowels, commented as follows on the Hebrew language and the Tetragrammaton in particular as connected to the incarnation of the Son of God:
[T]he Bible differs on its surface from every other book.
It speaks of a Trinity in the very roots of its verbs, ever one of which is, in the Hebrew, composed of 3 letters—tri-lateral.
It teaches man’s apostasy and restoration in the singular reversal of its text. The Hebrew is written and read from right to left: from God’s right hand where He doth work, is man’s departure. Then the Greek takes him up, a prodigal son at his remotest distance from God and brings him back from left to right—from death to life again.
Incarnation is in the Tetragrammaton [JHVH/YHWH]: that is the Hebrew letters of the word Jehovah, יְהוָֹה, written vertically from up to down give us the outlines of the human figure—God made flesh. This is the difference between Elohim, God in creation; and God in covenant anticipating incarnation.
Again: the Bible puts man’s true relations in the very conjugation of the Hebrew verb. In all occidental languages the verb is conjugated from the first person to the third—“I,” “Thou,” “He.” The Hebrew, in reversal of the human thought, is conjugated from the third down and back to the first: beginning with God, then my neighbor, then myself last—“He,” “Thou,” “I.” This is the Divine order: self-obliterating and beautiful. (George S. Bishop, The Doctrines of Grace [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1977], 8)
What do you think—is his comment just speculation, or is there something to it? God is the Author of language, after all, and it is reasonable to think that He would take the highest degree of care in His own name in the language, Hebrew, in which He originally revealed Himself. On the other hand, does He ever encourage us to draw conclusions like this in the plain statements He makes about how we are to learn of Him in His revelation? Do you agree with Bishop? Why or why not?
The SNOWMAN is a hater–systemically racist, sexist, fascist, and anti-LGBTQ+!!!!!!!
Happy Winter Solstice! I wanted to point out an important point of systemic racism in this evil United States culture of racism, sexism, and xenophobia that you may have overlooked, although it is all around you, promoting microaggressions against womyn and all people of color everywhere. After reading this article, you will have no justification for continuing use of this racist and sexist language, and you should immediately cancel anyone you know who continues to do so. You must start going into restaurants, malls, and other random places, accosting people, and finding out if they are fascists who refuse to cancel these great evils that you are now woke to. If they do not immediately agree with you, hit them in the face, vandalize their car, and take their wallet, as Antifa would explain is the ONLY proper response. What do I refer to, you ask? What could have been missed in the gazillion mandatory diversity training sessions at work, in the now ubiquitous political brainwashing everywhere? I refer to the racist, sexist, and fascist language of the SNOWMAN.
The Snowman—
universal symbol of patriarchy, bigotry,
and fascist, racist, sexist hate.
Note, first of all, the sexism here—it is the snowMAN. Snowwomen, and non-binary, LGBTQ+ snow persuns, are vastly underrepresented minorities in this cold, hard world. You must immediately cease referring to the patriarchal term “snowman” and speak, instead of “snow persuns.” Certainly children—excuse me, those who identify as being in the age group whose age assigned at birth is zero/newborn—should not be encouraged to build or play with snowmen. At the very least, all snowmen should be built with a frown instead of a smile, and with frozen tears or icicles of contrition for the sexist male privilege into which they have been ushered, and a taller, stronger, happy, Biden-Harris snowwomyn should be built next to any snowman.
The snowwoman—not sexist like the snowman, but still racist and white supremacist
Note as well, that snowmen—and even snowwomyn—are overwhelmingly white. Diversity in snowpersuns is almost entirely lacking. White snowmen should be frozen out high-level colleges and job opportunities attractive to them, whether in refrigeration, arctic travel, or ice cream sales, until snowpersuns of color, and snowpersuns of every kind of racial, gender, and sexual minority, are overrepresented in every income bracket of our systemically racist, sexist, and fascist nation, and there are equal numbers of diverse snowpersuns found in winter in North Dakota and in summer in Arizona.
Don’t try to cover your hate with the argument that snowpersuns are white because snow is white—it’s just nature. That’s the same type of old fascist argument people make against transgender rights when they claim there are only men and women—it’s just nature. No, “nature” is just a social construct, just like “men,” “women,” and the color of snow. This does not need to be proven—everyone that is woke knows it, and if you deny it you are giving in to white privilege and are just a RACIST SEXIST FASCIST. Q. E. D.
A LGBTQ+ Non-Binary, Socialist/Communist,
Snowbeing of Color Snowpersun—
the ONLY acceptable alternative for tolerant persuns.
(No picture included because there aren’t any yet.)
I hope that you are now woke to the great evil of building, encouraging children to play with, or in any way supporting the racist and sexist evil of the SNOWMAN. Dear reader, if you have every used such racist and sexist language, please send me a check of no less than $10,000 for every time you have supported patriarchy with this now cancelled term, to show that you are now fully in on diversity, inclusion and tolerance. I will donate the appropriate portion of your guilt offering to our local Antifa chapter while keeping the rest for myself. If you do not, I will burn your house down to show what tolerant people do to intolerant fascists like you.
So in conclusion: The snowman—cancel him!
Sanctification Summary: Christian Holiness or Sanctification—A Summary from Eternity Past to the Eternal State
During the recent Word of Truth Conference at Bethel Baptist Church, I had the privilege of preaching a summary of what Scripture teaches on sanctification. It was suggested that this summary be made into a pamphlet. You can now download the pamphlet on the FaithSaves website by clicking here; it is entitled “Christian Sanctification: A Summary from Eternity Past to the Eternal State.” The video is also live at FaithSaves; it can also be watched on YouTube by clicking here; if it is a blessing, I would encourage you to “like” it on YouTube and leave a comment. I have also embedded the video below for your viewing edification.
May it be a blessing to you, and with those with whom you can share it who want to understand what Scripture teaches about sanctification.
–TDR
Raise a Godly Family in an Ungodly Area–Is it Possible?
If one is in Oklahoma, there are pages and pages of Baptist churches in the phone book. (Phone book? What’s that? But I digress.) In the San Francisco Bay Area, there are many, many fewer churches that even preach a true gospel, much less take a stand for all the truth in the Bible. Sometimes, in relation to a post like “Evangelize the Bay Area of California!,” some people say, and more people think, something to the effect: “I’m glad you are wanting to do that, but I could never do it. I want to raise my family for God, so we will live in a conservative area, try to move some place rural or stay rural if we are, and never, ever go to a place that is liberal and godless like San Francisco.” Is this a Biblical way of thinking? Do we see this sort of thinking in Scripture?
It is true that if one wants to live a comfortable and easy life, coasting along living the American Dream, doing so in a conservative and more God-and-Bible friendly area is easier. Taxes are likely to be lower; people are more likely to be friendly; everything is nice and pleasant. But where does Scripture say life is about having things nice and easy? Where do “nice and easy” and “take up the cross and follow Me” meet?
Revelation 2-3 records Christ’s commands to seven first century (Baptist) churches. One of these churches was “where Satan’s seat is,” and where “Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth” (Revelation 2:13). Sounds like a really, really rough place. A lot worse than San Francisco, in fact. No martyrs in San Francisco recently. So because the church was in a wicked part of the world, Christ told the congregation that they shouldn’t be in a big, bad city, where Satan’s seat was. He told them to go to some rural place and live the American Dream.
Oh wait, sorry, that isn’t in the text anywhere. Didn’t Christ want the families at that church to be able to raise their children for God? Didn’t He know that you can’t do that in a city “where Satan’s seat is”?
In the book of Acts, the Apostles and their helpers really, really wanted those who received the gospel to raise their children for God, of course. Therefore, we see the pattern that they sought out the areas that were the most likely to have Biblical values and went there first, leaving those in the big, bad cities to perish in their sin.
Oh wait, sorry, that isn’t what they did–they went to the cities first, and even when the Apostles had to flee because of riots, they didn’t tell the church members there to leave their city and go somewhere things were easier.
So this idea that you can’t raise your children for God in areas that are hostile to the Bible is not in Revelation 2-3 and not in the book of Acts. Is it in the epistles? Nope. In the Gospels? Nope. So does it have any basis in the Bible? None at all. It is just made up. The closest you can get to it is that if someone is actively trying to kill you or cause you bodily harm Christ teaches that you can run away. Also, if you go to a wicked place for worldly purposes unconnected to the glory of God and leave godly influences behind to go there (Genesis 18-19), you should expect bad things to happen. Those are both totally different than refusing to go to a liberal part of the United States to help a strong church or plant a church because there is more open evil in the world than in some nice, rural, conservative, Bible-friendly area, maybe in the Bible belt or in the heavily Republican South.
What does matter to raising a godly family is having a strong church that is seeking to obey all of Scripture for the glory of God, and where both parents are actively serving. If you want to raise your family for God, make sure that you have a church like that. Make sure that you have your kids in a strong Christian school or homeschool that is actively seeking to disciple them with close parental involvement, and that you and the school are consistent in the use of the rod and of reproof. If you think you can put your kids in public school because you live in a conservative area, so everything will be fine, you are bonkers. Do the above to raise a godly family. If God is giving you the desire to help evangelize for the purpose of seeing new churches established in a part of the USA that actually needs them really, really badly–in other words, those liberal parts where nobody or almost nobody is preaching the gospel–do not refuse to go because of this made-up idea that you can’t raise a godly family there. It isn’t true. It is a lie, a Satanic lie to confuse people on what is necessary for godly child-rearing and to prevent the Great Commission from being fulfilled. Certainly someone in a weaker church in a more conservative part of the country is more likely to lose his children to the devil than someone in a stronger church in a more liberal part of America.
At least in my experience, people who have adopted this non-Biblical idea usually limit their restriction on moving to liberal areas to the United States. Going to a mission field is OK, even if the place is very wicked. If they were consistent, they would apply this idea to foreign countries as well, which would be the end of world missions. The large majority of the world is more corrupt and with less Biblical influence than remains even in San Francisco, Massachusetts, and other parts of the USA where we still have First Amendment protections and other constitutional privileges as citizens that are not present in the overwhelming majority of the world.
It would be great if some of the people in the Baptist churches on every corner in the Bible belt and in other nice, Bible-friendly areas would get out of their holy huddle and move to parts of the USA and to the rest of the world where the vast majority of the population has never heard the gospel even one time. They should be earnestly desiring to move to places like that and start preaching the gospel to those that have never heard it (Romans 15:20). Maybe the default position should be to help there, and only stay in their nice and comfortable place if it is clearly God’s will that they stay instead of going.
So if you have it in your mind that you would never go somewhere like the San Francisco Bay Area because it is liberal with little Biblical influence, you are not thinking Scripturally. Instead of wanting to avoid going there because of a made up idea that raising a family for God is impossible in such a place, ask the Lord of the harvest what He would have you to do and where He would have you go, knowing that as you actively take up your cross and follow Christ you will have the best chance possible to raise the next generation to do the same.
Oh, and by the way, while the idea that you can’t raise children for God in a liberal area is not in the Bible, at least you have the Catholic philosophy of monasticism and Ellen White, the cult leader and prophetess of Seventh-Day Adventism, on your side. In her allegedly “inspired” book Country Living, Mrs. White made statements such as:
“[God] wants us to live where we have elbow room. His people are not to crowd into the cities. He wants them to take their families out of the cities, that they may better prepare for eternal life” (17.1).
“Get out of the cities as soon as possible, and purchase a little piece of land, where you can have a garden, where your children can watch the flowers growing” (17.3).
Aww, isn’t that sweet. Too bad it isn’t in the Bible anywhere. If you follow the Bible instead of Ellen White, take up the cross, follow Him, and help to preach the gospel to everyone in the areas where nobody is doing it. God will help you raise your family for Him there. –TDR
Support Bethel and Faithsaves.net When Shopping at Amazon
Black Friday is today, and Cyber Monday is coming up! I relatively recently wrote a post about Amazon Smile and how you can, whenever you shop at Amazon.com, support Bethel Christian Academy, a ministry of Bethel Baptist Church, without paying a penny more for whatever you were buying. However, there is a way to go one better–you can support both a ministry such as Bethel as well as faithsaves.net while paying exactly the same price as you would normally at Amazon.com. If you go to Amazon via the link below:
Support Bethel & FaithSaves
you will support both your Amazon Smile organization such as Bethel and faithsaves.net. (While the page opens to the Amazon page for the book Thou Shalt Keep Them, you do not need to buy that book, but can navigate from there to anywhere on Amazon and you will still end up supporting Bethel or whatever other Amazon Smile organization you use and FaithSaves with what you purchase. Also, Bethel Christian Academy gets exactly the same 0.5% whether or not you also help support fathsaves.net–there is no decrease in the amount given to BCA for having Amazon give a small bit of their profit to FaithSaves also.)
If you don’t want to support faithsaves.net, but only an Amazon Smile organization such as Bethel, you can use the link below to sign up for Amazon Smile, and then afterwards just go to smile.amazon.com:
Click here to sign up for Amazon Smile and/or pick Bethel Christian Academy as the charity of your choice
If you don’t want to support an Amazon Smile organization, but only faithsaves.net, you can use the link below:
I would encourage you to use the first button above and support Bethel and FaithSaves whenever you shop on Amazon.com, and share the link with others so they can do the same (unless your church has its own Amazon Smile account–then support your church–which you can still do by making it your Amazon Smile organization and then just clicking through the first link above). Save this blog post to your bookmarks and click from here into Amazon whenever you are going to buy something from them. (You can also explore other options to get discounts on purchases online here.) The sending church of Dr. Brandenburg does many things for the glory of God in addition to having this blog, from giving people a place to have pure worship for the 7 million people in the Bay Area, to the new church plant that Evangelist Brandenburg is establishing in Oregon, to the faithful ministry and gospel outreach in the Bay Area, to the school and other educational ministries, etc. At faithsaves.net we are working to help Bethel expand its video outreach so that college courses, debates, podcasts, etc. can be online, and the video equipment for all of that is expensive, so support would be a blessing. If Amazon is willing to help out by donating a portion of what you purchase, why not do it? Thank you for your consideration!
–TDR
Updated Evangelistic Bible Study #1
The evangelistic Bible study series online at faithsaves.net are being updated. Study #1, which covers the inspiration, preservation, and canonicity of Scripture, has been updated with pictures and other things that make it much nicer looking. I would encourage you to start using the updated ones if your church uses these evangelistic Bible studies.
In addition to improvements in the appearance of the Bible study, some facts have been updated. For example, the chart below:
You can download an MS Word file of Bible study #1 here to personalize with your church’s information, while seekers can be directed here to get PDFs of it and to have access to other helpful gospel resources.
–TDR
Evangelistic Bible Study #4, “How Do I Receive the Gospel?” is now live!
In previous weeks I had mentioned that videos teaching the evangelistic Bible studies that I have written were being made available. We had made #1, “What is the Bible?” live. That study covers the inspiration, preservation, and canonicity of the Bible. We had made #2, “Who is God?” live, covering who the true God is, including His crucial Tri-unity. We had made #3, “What Does God Want From Me?” live. Study #3 covers the law of God and His objective standard of perfect holiness which He will use to judge mankind in the last day. #5, “How Do I Receive the Gospel?” was also made live–that study covered repentance and faith, the human response to the gospel. However, we were having issues with study #4, so that one was not yet available. However, I am pleased to report that Bible study #4, “How Can God Save Sinners?” is now live. You can watch it at FaithSaves, watch it on YouTube, or watch it through the embedded video below:
Please “like” the video on YouTube and feel free to post a comment if you believe it is valuable, as doing those things help the video gain circulation.
The physical copies of the Bible studies are available online if you can do them with someone in person or over Skype, Zoom, etc. in this era of COVID. I would encourage you to share the videos as well with people who are not willing to do a one-on-one study with you but like to watch things over the Internet.
May the Lord use these studies for His glory and the advancement of His gospel!
Studies #6 and #7, on eternal security and assurance (#6) and the church (#7) are not yet available, but we are working on them. Please feel free to pray for us as it takes a lot of work to have these done well. The actually evangelistic studies, however, are all complete–#6 and #7 are follow-up Bible studies.
–TDR
Learn Christian Latin, Self-Directed: How I am Doing It
Latin is the language of Christendom for over 1,500 years–it is valuable for someone who wants to understand the history of Christianity, to understand the Latin Vulgate and Old Latin Bible translations, the language known by Biblical writers from Mark, early writers in Christendom, influential medieval theologians from Anslem to Aquinas, reformers from Luther to Calvin, Puritans like John Owen, and Baptist writers like John Gill. Latin also helps one to understand untranslated Latin excerpts in commentaries like Keil & Delitzch, Latin excerpts in systematic theologies, and so on.
Interestingly, only approximately 0.01% of all extant Latin, though admittedly with substantial influence, is composed of classical Roman authors Approximately 80% of extant Latin writings composed by those who professed to be Christians, while the other 20% is scientific and various other treatises by non-Christian writers (Derek Cooper, Basics of Latin: A Grammar with Readings and Exercises from the Christian Tradition [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2020], xvii).
So in light of the value of Latin, I have prayerfully decided to to learn the language at my own pace. So how is it going? I’m glad you asked. How am I going about it?
I first started with Latin 101: Learning a Classical Language by Hans-Friedrich Mueller, a course offered by “The Great Courses” organization. Having profited by numbers of classes offered by The Great Courses, I would use their class to learn classical Latin and then transition to the Latin of Christendom. The “Great Courses” class offers a textbook with exercises and also video lectures, and I wanted to have lectures with a real, knowledgable teacher. I also did not want to pay very much money, and I knew that The Great Courses regularly offers sales where their classes are listed at 70-85% off (you should never pay the full price, or even half price, for a Great Courses course; they list prices are fake to make you feel like you are getting an incredible deal at 70% off. The marketing technique is effective–but the real, 70% off price for their classes is actually reasonable for courses that are often of high quality.)
I got through the majority of the Great Courses class, completing all the exercises, with their textbook and a Latin dictionary (Simpson, D. P., Cassell’s Latin Dictionary: Latin-English & English-Latin, 5th ed. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing, 1968) However, as I kept plugging away, I started to get really bogged down in the exercises. I was looking up practically every word in the dictionary and taking an inordinately long amount of time to complete the exercises. I believe that the Great Courses class will probably work for some, but for me there just were not enough exercises to attain sufficient mastery of the material before going on to the next chapter. So after slogging through a majority of the book, with progress getting slower and slower, I started looking for alternatives.
I discovered the Familia Romana / Lingua Latina: Per Se Illustrata series, and have to this point been very impressed. I purchased a number of books so that I could have everything I needed to teach myself using that series, as well as a few other works that help as described below:
5.) Ørberg, Hans H., Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata: Teacher’s Materials. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 2005. Amazon Smile link
I also got a few others; click here for my page on learning Christian and classical Latin for more information.
Recent Comments