Видео

Molinist? Anything to get away from the fact that election is unconditional,undeserved ,a gift from God.

Interesting, I didn't know there were Roman Catholic priests that saw Anglicans as having valid orders

I struggle with this sin a lot, padre. It is difficult. Everytime I say nay, I end up falling back into it. I get scared sometimes, thinking that maybe I'll eventually be turned over to a reprobate mind. Frightening😢

I was raised in dispensationalism. I can remember when I was a wee lad and asking the pastor, "Didn't dispensationalism start with Darby." He responded and said that St Irenaeus and St Justin Martyr were dispensationalists, because they held to premillennialism. It wasn't until I became an adult that I realized there was a difference between historic and dispensational premillennialism.

I grew up as a dispensational IFB. I am now a Supersessionist, and historic premillennial. I was told Israel is The Father's wife, and the Church is The Son's bride. There were a lot of wacky themes and beliefs.

I got involved in a short discussion about Dispensationalism elsewhere and feel like this may be helpful to at least someone. If it isn't something you understand, that's great... skip it and move on. But if you have been exposed to it, you'll sure know it; and you may find this helpful, at least in part. I want to say up front, I won't be answering any responses to this post. I just don't have the desire to debate it; I went through that way too many times as an ordained evangelical while I transformed theologically over a few years becoming a Confessional Lutheran. In any case, I stumbled around with my thumbs on my cell phone one night not long ago while in a late night discussion with a rather smug poster and shot this out. - Dispensationalism is just one of several heterodox groups that got started in the English-speaking world during the 19th & 20th centuries. Along with Adventism, Pentecostalism, Independent fundamentalism, Church of Christ, etc. They are just one of the many new boys on the block. One that had such horrible theology that each new generation of dispies has had to try and repair it to the point that now it has become almost unrecognizable when compared to what was earlier taught by John Nelson Darby or C. I. Scofield (classic dispensationalists). Think about it, the first dispies (short for dispensationalists) taught that there were two new covenants. One for Israel and one for the church. They believed that the nation of Israel was an earthly people that would inherit the earth, and the Church was a heavenly people that would inherit heaven. Then John Walvoord and Charles Ryrie (revised dispensationalists) come along and say that's wrong, thus revising the system. Now teaching that there is only one new covenant, and all of God's people will be received into heaven. Then later on Darrell Bock and Robert Saucy (progressive dispensationalists) come along and say hey, this distinction between the kingdom of God and the Kingdom of heaven is wrong, and that Christ sits on the heavenly throne, having been seated at the right hand of The Father - so now we can no longer say that Christ's kingdom is yet future (the system has now progressed to the point where they recognize that Christ currently reigns over His church, and that His reign is extended via the proclamation of the gospel), so they borrow the already-not yet concept from the post-trib theologian George E. Ladd so that they can teach that, although Christ currently reigns from on high there is still to be an earthly kingdom that is yet future (the millennial kingdom). But uh oh, now we can no longer say the distinction between the church and Israel (which they have also blurred by overlapping them, all while keeping them distinct from one-another), and the distinction between the two kingdoms, demand that we place the rapture before tribulation. So now we have mid-trib and pre-wrath dispies as well (and admit that it wouldn't be inconsistent to be both post-trib and dispensational at the same time). And then there was the gap theory, and the fact that the original dispies taught that there were different ways of salvation in different dispensations. Then there is the problem of the supposed third temple... which of course is a failure to recognize some of the symbolic language in relation to eschatology (Jesus said "destroy this TEMPLE and I will raise it up in three days". He was referring to His body.), and the problem of having a new altar complete with animal sacrifices in this new temple, which is in a future millennial kingdom, in spite of the clear teaching of scripture, that Jesus was the ultimate once and for all sacrifice, etc., etc., etc. I could go on, and on, and on, and on. I know all this because I taught it for over two decades. I bumped into all of these issues and more and knew all of the proof texts used to refute those that attacked my precious dispensational theology.... all out of their proper context of course (which I learned by continuously reading scripture instead of books about scripture). I went to prophecy conferences and talked with John Walvoord, and Tim Lahey, and Arnold Fruechtenbaum, etc., etc. Trust me, the better you understand dispensationalism the harder it is to believe (and jibe with scripture). It is a bankrupt, man-made systematic that butchers the Bible by dividing it up into dispensations (usually 7) that the Bible doesn't divide itself into, rather than just teaching law and gospel. No need for all of the prophecy peaks, dichotomies, or for plan b for when the Jews reject the offer of the kingdom, and all of the other crazy things that it teaches. Enough said... shaking the dust off of my feet and moving on.

Im hopeful post millennial==christendom gang

Thank you Father James! Excellent discussion.

Dispensationalism is the theological equivalent of that Star Trek: Voyager episode where Seven of Nine assimilates too much information and tries to make sense of it all by herself, and starts believing wild conspiracies about her own crewmates and captain due to "patterns" in the ship's logs.

As I understand it Dispensationalism is the concept that God's interactions with humans are different in different ages and some body once called it the greatest heresy since Marcion.As best i can tell it mainly influenced the more evangelical branches of the Protestant movement.

It’s fulfillment theology not “replacement” theology. Dispensationalism had me screwed up and confused on Israel , the church , and all kinds of things. Eventually I became Catholic. There’s is 1 people of God. This greatly ties into the “mystery of the gentiles” and the promises to Israel.

South Carolina has the best state flag.

Amils can still say that there is a real kingdom of God manifested on Earth. We just don't think that there is a coming reign of Christ before his return which the Church will bring about by converting every individual. I'd say that we are spreading the reign of Christ now, and that Christ will bring it to fulfillment on his return.

With Paul quoting Genesis in Galatians, I read a paper that argued that the singular/plural distinction is there in Hebrew (or at least implied). According to C John Collins, whether zera (Heb. for seed) is singular or plural can be determined by the pronouns used for it, and if we read Genesis 22:17, the Hebrew word meaning “of his enemies” (your seed shall possess the gate of his enemies) uses a singular pronoun. So Genesis 22:17-18 can be read, “I will greatly multiply your *seeds* as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your *seed* shall possess the gate *of his enemies*. In your *seed* all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.” The switch between plural and singular would indicate that the seed in which the nations will be blessed is a singular individual. The paper was “Galatians 3:16: What Kind of Exegete Was Paul?”

In dispensationalism, a major distinction between Israel and the Body of Christ is the fact that the Body of Christ is a mystery revealed to St. Paul, never before revealed in the OT: "for his body’s sake, which is the church: whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints" (Col. 1:24-6) "Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: " (Rom. 16:25-6) "the scriptures of the prophets" of course "were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope" (Rom. 15:4) we are admonished by the OT (1 Cor. 10:11) but since we were a mystery we are not in the OT. Harold Hoehner: “Acts 3:19-21 clearly indicates that there will be a time future to our day when the covenants will be fulfilled literally. Furthermore, this view would make the church the “new Israel,” and this is contrary to the whole point of Eph 2:11-22 where the “new person” is distinct from the nation Israel. Gentiles do not become Jews but rather Jews and Gentiles become “one new person.” The church is not the new Israel but a distinct body of believers made up of believing Jews and Gentiles” Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary Harold Hoehner A mystery is something "which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed" (Eph. 3:5) Colossians makes it clear in its parallel wording to Eph. 3 that this dispensation of the mystery was completely "hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints" (Col. 1:26). The eternal purpose (Eph. 3:11) of the triune God to make in the Son (Eph. 2:15) one new man through the cross of Christ (Eph. 2:16). This is now revealed through St. Paul (2 Tim. 1:10). I've been taught a μυστήριον is something that cannot be know until revealed, its a secret hence "kept secret" (Rom. 16:25). God will incorporate Jews and Gentiles in both purposes, through the body of Christ (not Malachi 1:11) and also through Israel (so Malachi 1:11). All saints are saved by Christ's atonement, of course, no saint of any dispensation is saved any other way. Only saints in this dispensation of the mystery are members of His body, the Church catholic. Am I not your brother if I hold to this? I really want to know sincerely so I can understand the severity of what I've been taught.

Try the carnivore diet for your cancer. Praying for you.

NO PROTESTANT can accept the Nicene Creed for several reasons. 1. The Nicene Creed was made for the one Church, not those outside of it. 2. The Nicene Creed is authoritative, infallible, inerrant, and binding which reflects the work of the Holy Spirit in the Ecumenical Councils that produced the Creed. The HS in the ECs were understood in their work as authoritative, infallible, inerrant, and binding which reflected such characteristics onto the Creed. 3. The details of the Nicene Creed therefore cannot be cherry picked. It’s all or nothing. You’re a Christian in the Church or you don’t accept the Creed in part or whole and you’re outside the one Church. It’s unlike a Baptist confession where you can cherry pick it. 4. The details of the Creed hold a specific understanding that all the Church Fathers as guided by the Holy Spirit understood and preserved as coming from the Apostles. Example, they shared one view of baptism, not 4-5 like among different Protestants. Knowing some of this, can any Protestant claim to accept the Nicene Creed? If Prots mishandle the Nicene Creed by denying some parts while accepting others, they only show they exist outside of the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that produced it. Where is the ancient Church today? In the Orthodox Church. Come home.

I would suggest that you start off with the general structure: Venite with antiphon, psalms with antiphons and gloria patri, readings with responses, benedictus or magnificat, then the general prayers, I guess a hymn somewhere and then the Our Father and closing prayer. Point out the options, such as the New Testment canticle and the opening psalm (95, 24, 67 or 100). Also, don't forget the opening prayer, "Aperi, Domine, os meum ad benedicendum nomen sanctum tuum..."

21:10 I thought the rubric said to do the Glory Be after portions of psalms too? Maybe I am just used to the 1662.

the investiture of the current ACNA primate featured many many priestesses and deaconesses. its just so disappointing that the supposedly non woke ACNA subsists in promoting error amongst the clergy.

Wow! I recall getting into a spirited exchange with an RC who emphatically stated that fiducia supplicantis is just a blessing of persons not a sanctioning of homosexual unions. But this video clearly shows differently. Either this priest was using a rite of blessing not approved of (which means his bishop should immediately discipline him)or FS is really as bad as it seems.

This was an excellent talk, as were all the others. This conference was better than I ever could’ve expected. Thank you Fr. James.

Fascinating conversation. Though I think I understood like a quarter of it 😅

If I do leave the Saint Michael's Episcopal church I'm going to be very sad because I really do like father Ryan wiksel. He even wrote a couple of books about the last cedar.😢

I'm getting tempted to stop attending the Episcopal Church I've been going to most Sundays and start attending the Anglican Church most Sundays.➕✨

Just to clarify - the Rosary is not a dogma in the Catholic Church. You do NOT have to accept it. But just so folks know, it is not exclusively about prayers to Mary. It's often called the GOSPEL ON A STRING as Catholics focus on the following, when praying the Rosary - that is - the Annunciation (Luke 1:26-38), the Visitation (Luke 1:40-56), the Nativity (Luke 2:6-20), the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple (Luke 2:21-39), the Finding of the Child Jesus in the Temple (Luke 2:41-51).The Agony in the Garden (Matt. 26:36-46), the Scourging (Matt. 27:26), the Crowning with Thorns (Matt. 27:29), the Carrying of the Cross (John 19:17), the Crucifixion (Luke 23:33-46).The Resurrection (Luke 24:1-12), the Ascension (Luke 24:50-51), the Descent of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-4), the Assumption of Mary into Heaven (Rev. 12), and her Coronation (Rev. 12:1)

The Reverend at the Episcopal Church that I attend said there used to be 50 to 60 kids in the congregation years ago. Now there's only about 10. 😢

as far as a underatand, this lady was not even baptized in the church of jesus christ of latter day saints. she studied with the missionaries.

How do you feel about the mention of female deacons in the Epistles?

ruclips.net/video/Fmt5A0xuaCU/видео.html This podcast explains a Lutheran understanding of apostolic succession, but without episcopal ordination.

Great video with a lot to consider as a Lutheran. I'm one of the LCMS Lutherans who hold to "an understanding" as you put it, of apostolic succession. I know you will disagree with some of these, but I'm at the following premises. 1. The Biblical pattern is clearly elders (pastors) being appointed by Apostles as they establish churches, and those first generation appointees are clearly expected to appoint their successors/other ministers for other churches. (probably mostly agreed here) 2. Ordination with laying on of hands is the thing that puts a man into/makes him a minister and thus able to validly consecrate the Sacrament, absolve, etc. (probably agreed here) 3. Presbyter and Bishop are interchangeable in the NT, but episcopal ordination is an extremely early development, like first or second generation after apostles, in the church. Presbyter and Bishop are ontologically the same thing and thus both able to ordain, but for the sake of order, the Church instituted exclusively episcopal ordination. (likely disagreement here). So in the German Lutheran situation, in which no bishops in Lutheran areas were willing to ordain Lutheran ministers, the Lutheran presbyters had to then ordain additional Lutheran clergy. Since I hold that bishops ordain exclusively only as a point of church order, and that bishops and presbyters are ontologically the same, Lutheran presbyters, who were validly ordained by anyone's metric, were able to validly ordain other pastors since their bishops had departed from the non-papist catholic faith. The only point of doubt a Lutheran in the US may have today is if his pastor is truly in that ordination chain from that time, which is why I wish myself that the Lutheran Reformers had consecrated a bishop for the sake of order and confidence. But given that Lutherans ordain with pastors, nearly all Lutheran pastors are almost definitely validly ordained. I am at odds with other understandings in the LCMS, but not the book of Concord. Many in the LCMS essentially believe that the minister's authority is conferred by the congregation, not Christ. I obviously disagree with that. I also can't stand that we largely hold to ordination being merely a confirmation of an "inner call"; it sounds just like Baptists talking about Baptism.

I don’t entirely agree with this (I am a Lutheran in the LCMS, so shocker). I do wish we would restore the episcopate in our denomination however. Nevertheless, we should all be in prayer for the Lutheran Church of Australia, that they would repent and reverse their decision. Interestingly I have heard some in the LCMS say that a woman cannot validly consecrate the Eucharist, not that it’s just illicit. I have not entirely made up my mind on this but there is never really a situation where that should even be considered, so why would you ever take that chance?

Women clergy exist in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Catholic monastic traditions. The Abbess is the equivalent of a Bishop, the Nun is a Presbyter and the Sister a Deacon. This is because the ban on Women's Ordination is not a ban on Women's Ministry but only finds a way to restrict Women's Minìstry using legalism. I am Conservative BUT support WO because of this. That and the fact that there are enough female Prophets in the Bible to throw out Roman Catholic and Orthodox Catholic claims that the Tradition of banning female clergy is Biblical.

Lutheran from Australia, the more immediate question about communion is can one have communion within a synod that now condones Ordination of Women (OW). And related can one commune with pastors who are no longer recognised by God. Maybe this is what they were thinking or for the sake of the parishioners who've been faithful but cheated by liars (whether the woman is an obvious woman or not). Either way, our choices are high church anglican priestesses, anglicans who deny the real presence and the sacrament of baptism, theologically barren methodists, RC, bapto-costals, Copts, EO and Tewahedo.

Based Cheerwine Enjoyer.

It's the Holy Spirit who consecrates anything. He'll choose who he wants to do his work. To him, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)

As a Presbyterian, I don't think it is valid either. Female ordination is a slippery slope to everything that is evil in the mainline churches.

Why do people speak on things about which they have no knowledge?

As a Catholic watching this video I agree with your thoughts on women ordination. But I can't help reflect that any group calling themselves 'christian' that are not either in union with the Catholic Faith; or at least have their Apostolic Succession recognized by the Catholic Faith (ie. Maronite Catholics, Greek Orhtodox, Anglican Ordinariat, etc.); then they do not have valid sacraments (outside of baptism if done right) and thus their 'ordinations' are no more valid than so-called female ordinations. At that point it is just a bunch of layman/laywomen playing pretend anyway.

The Reformed have the regulative principle of worship, but we have the regulative principle of ordination.

Can’t believe that the great Protestant Tradition of the Lutherans went down to the same level as Baptists, very sad.

Something similar happened to me. The Reformed people on Redeemed Zoomer's Discord said that I was Donatist for saying that female presbyters aren't presbyters and can't consecrate the Lord's Supper.

More Lutherans should watch this video!

Very based

I think in the next generation of the LCMS there will be pushes for episcopal polity and maybe a drive for apostolic succession

Why do you think the understanding shifted away from the views you express here?