Padre Paulo, before you go off on the Reformation, remember that the first "Protestant" churches WERE those cathedral and parish churches. It wasn't until later that the **heirs** of John Calvin went beyond Calvin and whitewashed churches, destroying the beauty of our heritage.
The cathedral at Ely has an rather unitue octagonal dome where the nave meets the east and west transepts. St. Paul's, London also has a dome. Caveat: These are later architectural embellishment (much later than the Hagia Sofia).
Thank you for posting this video, however, I must mention several principal points regarding Methodist soteriology that appear to be erroneous. 1. You assert that Wesley maintained the necessity of a born-again experience prior to salvation. Whilst it is true that he did indeed hold to such a view during the formative years of his soteriological development, he later acknowledged its inaccuracy and incoherency. This can be evidenced in Sermon CVI and CX of his Sermons on Several Occasions, wherein he mentions that a person lacking a born-again experience may still attain salvation through what he terms the 'faith of a servant',as opposed to the 'faith of a son/child', which is characteristic of one who possesses the witness of the Spirit. Those with the faith of a servant are encouraged to partake of the means of grace, such as the Lord's Supper and prayer. Nevertheless, due to their faith, they are still justified and are thus saved. Moreover, he also says that the faith of a child is accompanied by 'full assurance of faith', this does not imply that those possessing only the faith of a servant lack assurance entirely, as I will get on to in the next point. 2. You claim that Wesley’s understanding of salvation is 'grounded in an emotional and subjective warm experience'. Whilst it is true that he acknowledges the significance of such experiences, you are mistaken in the sense that you presume Wesley grounds salvation solely upon them. He has a more comprehensive view that incorporates both subjective and objective assurance, as manifest in the Sacraments. Wesley does affirm the objective assurance of the Sacraments, allowing one to look back upon Baptism as a source of assurance, as articulated in ‘A Catechism’ of the Book of Common Prayer (knowing Wesley, you will recognise his high view of the BCP). Sacramental assurance is experienced in an objective manner, for it is within the Sacraments that God’s grace is most clearly manifested. He asserts that, whilst the witness of the Spirit provides full assurance, it is not the sole means by which assurance is obtained. 3. You also claim that Wesley indicates that justification and regeneration possess only a logical precedence, whereas they are, temporally, identical. This assertion really is just incorrect. By merely examining the Methodist ordo salutis, one can easily distinguish between the two. Additionally, a review of his journal entry dated 25 January 1739 reveals that he explicitly states their temporal distinction. Almost the entirety of your critique hinges upon the first point, which, I must contend, is, regrettably, inaccurate. Hence, I must say that your critique, along with some of the points you have raised, presents a rather unfair representation of Methodist soteriology
I sincerely thank you for taking the time to watch this video, the intent of which is to orient 21st century Christians in the midst of the confusing array of theologies of salvation that have developed over the centuries. In this session, the intent was to point out that the often used phrase "born again" took on a new kind of meaning under the ministry of John Wesley. I am sure you are correct that Wesley changed his theology later in his ministry, but the truth is that his original meaning is what his influence is remembered for in the broader discussion of soteriology in the Protestant world. Many who enter the traditional Anglican, Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox world from a Protestant background have to somehow answer in themselves just what the "born again" experience of their earlier years truly meant, and I intend to help people place it in the context of historical theology and find a place for their experience ultimately in a more ancient theological structure. To your second point, again, it is my purpose to help people understand just what it means that they had once experienced a "strange warming" of the heart (which is a wonderful consolation graciously given by God) - and on the other hand, to begin to acknowledge that the notion that our affections must be oriented entirely towards the love of the Lord in heart, mind, soul, and strength before we can be "altogether Christian" is a well-intentioned theology with unintended and yet potentially seriously negative consequences for the spiritual life (ie. confusion about salvation when affections do not remain strong, motivation for trying to "make something emotional happen" in prayer or in a worship service, and perhaps most common - the falsification of a constant state of purely loving affections - all upon which it seems that ones eternal salvation depends). Whether Wesley stuck to these ideas after the "New Birth" sermon or not, countless others stick to it today, and it can be a very confusing, disorienting, and stressful way of following Christ. I mean to point out this theology as an innovation of the last few hundred years, not a return to early Christianity. To your third point, I simply point you to a quotation from Thomas H McCall, on whose article I base most of this session, "How is regeneration related to justification? For Wesley, justification logically precedes the new birth, but they share a temporal beginning." For this statement, he footnotes Wesley's "Sermon 42." While it is likely true that Methodist theology steps away from this theology in their ordo salutis, and even Wesley contradicts this in his journal (I trust you are correct), I am drawing this point from the scholar I was using as a source. In the end, I appreciate correction about Methodism or the later Wesley, but the session was meant to place this more modern theology in the context of ancient theology (over the entire course) where affections and experiences of God were considered consolations and gifts of the Lord, but not not to be grasped or even sought out. Iespecially mean to help those in my congregation who remain burdened with confusion about not having had a sufficient warming of the heart, not having a sudden and persistent conversion of affections, or who have a difficult time resting in the corporate and sacramental life given to the Church by our Lord (because of warring and contradictory theologies in their minds) and letting affections take care of themselves.
@@theanglicanchurchofsaintge9472 Thank you for your kind response. I would like to address several points for clarification: 1. Regarding your assertion that '[Wesley's] original meaning is what his influence is remembered for in the broader discussion of soteriology in the Protestant world' (though I would submit that the term 'initial' instead of 'original' would be more appropriate and more accurate), I must say that I do find this claim rather problematic. If Wesley’s initial view, that salvation rests solely upon the witness of the Spirit, is indeed what he is primarily remembered for, we would likely hear more from Protestants of other traditions accusing Methodists of neglecting the doctrine of sola fide. For that would suggest that it is not merely faith that justifies and hence saves us, but rather the Spirit's witness of our faith that saves. Such a position seems quite a stretch and lacks sufficient evidence or statistical backing. Although I express this not to dismiss your anecdotal experiences of individuals converting from non-Anglican Protestant traditions to Anglican and Ecclesialists traditions, for it may indeed be true in your particular region. However, I would not think that these Christians come from a Methodist background, probably Pentecostals or nondenoms or Charismatics or some other traditions I suppose? 2. Concerning the 'confusion about salvation when affections do not remain strong', even if one were to grant that Wesley's soteriology rests solely upon the witness of the Spirit, which I don't, it is important to note that Wesley's own experience of his 'heart strangely warmed', as recounted in his journal entry of 24 May 1738, was not characterised by overwhelming emotional fervour, in fact, in that same text, he noted that there was no joyfulness at that moment, describing it more as a state of calmness and warmth rather than heightened excitement. Moreover, Wesley explicitly cautioned against overvaluing emotions on many an occasion. This is particularly evident in his letter to Thomas Maxfield in November 1762, wherein he stated, 'I dislike something that has the appearance of enthusiasm, overvaluing feelings and inward impressions... and undervaluing reason, knowledge, and wisdom in general.' So to place undue emphasis on strong emotions not only contradicts the principles of Methodism but also stands in direct opposition to Wesley's own teachings. 3. With regards to the quotation from Thomas H McCall regarding the absence of a temporal distinction between justification and regeneration, I have revisited 'Sermon XLII: Satan's Devices'. However, I seem to be unable to find any indication within that text that suggests such a lack of distinction. I have also discussed this matter with my priest, and we both concur that the sermon does not appear indicate this assertion. Though he has told me that he will study it further and get back to me for any updates. Thus, at least prima facie, it does appear that this assertion is, well, to phrase it more charitably, not without dispute. 4. Now, as you may have guessed, I am commenting as Methodist. In light of your reply, it seems evident that the issues you have raised do not pertain to the problems inherent in Wesleyan theology itself, rather, they appear to emerge from non-Methodist Protestant traditions (or individuals) that have selectively appropriated elements of Wesleyan thought whilst neglecting other significant aspects. It is precisely this selective interpretation that seems to have led to the issues you have observed. So the concerns you have mentioned stem not from a genuine engagement with Wesleyan doctrine, but rather this incomplete perspective. I would therefore suggest that these concerns stem from non-Methodist Protestants holding an incomplete perspective rather than an authentic engagement with or adherence to Wesleyan teachings. Attributing these issues to Wesleyan theology is, consequently, somewhat unjust from a Methodist standpoint. It is like understanding only part of a tradition and misinterpreting it, much like blaming the Reformed tradition for hyper-Calvinism or suggesting that Roman Catholics worship Mary. Lastly, I wish to express my gratitude once more for your reply and for taking the time to actually read my comment, that is very charitable of you. And I sincerely hope that I do not come across as polemical or unreasonably confrontational. I also hope you can understand that as a Methodist, my intention in commenting is simply to ensure that Methodism is not misconstrued. All in all, God bless!
I look forward to this each week. One suggestion: I often cannot hear the questions from your audience, Fr. Paul. Could you repeat the questions before answering them. It helps with the context of you answers.
Great content, Fr. Paul. One thing that would help those of us watching online is if you repeat the questions from your congregation. It's difficult to hear them.
Saved by faith alone which is proven by works, so Sola Fide still applies. BTW: Can I submit my 100 questions to help you cover the next 30 or so Answers for Anglicans sessions? 😃
One church father, which one I cannot remember, stated that a bishop was in apostolic succession only if he was teaching what the apostles taught. So, I suppose if a bishop had a thousand hands laid upon him and the line went back 1000 generations, if he was not teaching what the apostles taught, he was not in the succession. Not power, but content. No need to run to Rome begging for the acceptance of our orders. The order is there in the teaching of the apostles. (Also no need to run to Istanbul for confirmation of the succession.) We need to be more sure that the Gospel is being rightly preached rather than genealogy. Really, Father Paul, you ought to be writing books. (With pictures, for dummies like me. 😁)
A cool thing that could be added to these videos is in the description to which could be entered the address of the church, the website, and a link to where to buy the BPC.
What marvelous and insightful thoughts on this passage in the Gospel of John. How encouraging to meditate upon Jesus as our Groom and that we are married to Him. Weak wine = the law; Good wine = the Gospel. Usually, I wonder why so many Anglican sermons are so short when there is so much to say about any passage of Scripture, but I believe this one sermon packed in so much that was worthy of the message within the Wedding of Cana. Thank you, Father Paul.
Augustine's long journey, by grace, from despising the Old Testament to seeing the unity of the Scriptures. I heard Law & Gospel and the Analogy of Faith. I heard an obedience to Paul's command to Timothy to "Preach the Word!" Thank you, Father Paul for this message.
"Go to the altar rail I will show you, and show yourself to the priest." What a marvelous connection to other callings of God. This is an insight into the Scriptures I have never seen. I go to the rail because of the promise given, for what is offered there. I cannot grasp nor receive the benefit of the promise if I do not have faith enough to obey that calling.
Just wanted to let you know that I really appreciate you choosing to teach through this book. I’ve had a 3 year roller coaster ride with this book and have come down hard in favor of it and most things Rod Dreher. Our family is (wife and 6 kids) are actively changing course to incorporate Benedict Option aspects. I also appreciate seeing a faithful, bible loving church out there. I’m a Baptist from west-Michigan and I listen to your class every week. I might start dipping into your other classes too. Keep up the good work!
Thank you, Father Paul and members of St. George the Martyr, for your presence on RUclips. I enjoy catching up with your goings-on and am blessed to see that our sister churches are witnessing to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Padre Paulo, before you go off on the Reformation, remember that the first "Protestant" churches WERE those cathedral and parish churches. It wasn't until later that the **heirs** of John Calvin went beyond Calvin and whitewashed churches, destroying the beauty of our heritage.
The cathedral at Ely has an rather unitue octagonal dome where the nave meets the east and west transepts. St. Paul's, London also has a dome. Caveat: These are later architectural embellishment (much later than the Hagia Sofia).
Thank you, Fr. Paul. This is a marvelous series.
One of the best lectures on the web.
Thank you for posting this video, however, I must mention several principal points regarding Methodist soteriology that appear to be erroneous. 1. You assert that Wesley maintained the necessity of a born-again experience prior to salvation. Whilst it is true that he did indeed hold to such a view during the formative years of his soteriological development, he later acknowledged its inaccuracy and incoherency. This can be evidenced in Sermon CVI and CX of his Sermons on Several Occasions, wherein he mentions that a person lacking a born-again experience may still attain salvation through what he terms the 'faith of a servant',as opposed to the 'faith of a son/child', which is characteristic of one who possesses the witness of the Spirit. Those with the faith of a servant are encouraged to partake of the means of grace, such as the Lord's Supper and prayer. Nevertheless, due to their faith, they are still justified and are thus saved. Moreover, he also says that the faith of a child is accompanied by 'full assurance of faith', this does not imply that those possessing only the faith of a servant lack assurance entirely, as I will get on to in the next point. 2. You claim that Wesley’s understanding of salvation is 'grounded in an emotional and subjective warm experience'. Whilst it is true that he acknowledges the significance of such experiences, you are mistaken in the sense that you presume Wesley grounds salvation solely upon them. He has a more comprehensive view that incorporates both subjective and objective assurance, as manifest in the Sacraments. Wesley does affirm the objective assurance of the Sacraments, allowing one to look back upon Baptism as a source of assurance, as articulated in ‘A Catechism’ of the Book of Common Prayer (knowing Wesley, you will recognise his high view of the BCP). Sacramental assurance is experienced in an objective manner, for it is within the Sacraments that God’s grace is most clearly manifested. He asserts that, whilst the witness of the Spirit provides full assurance, it is not the sole means by which assurance is obtained. 3. You also claim that Wesley indicates that justification and regeneration possess only a logical precedence, whereas they are, temporally, identical. This assertion really is just incorrect. By merely examining the Methodist ordo salutis, one can easily distinguish between the two. Additionally, a review of his journal entry dated 25 January 1739 reveals that he explicitly states their temporal distinction. Almost the entirety of your critique hinges upon the first point, which, I must contend, is, regrettably, inaccurate. Hence, I must say that your critique, along with some of the points you have raised, presents a rather unfair representation of Methodist soteriology
I sincerely thank you for taking the time to watch this video, the intent of which is to orient 21st century Christians in the midst of the confusing array of theologies of salvation that have developed over the centuries. In this session, the intent was to point out that the often used phrase "born again" took on a new kind of meaning under the ministry of John Wesley. I am sure you are correct that Wesley changed his theology later in his ministry, but the truth is that his original meaning is what his influence is remembered for in the broader discussion of soteriology in the Protestant world. Many who enter the traditional Anglican, Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox world from a Protestant background have to somehow answer in themselves just what the "born again" experience of their earlier years truly meant, and I intend to help people place it in the context of historical theology and find a place for their experience ultimately in a more ancient theological structure. To your second point, again, it is my purpose to help people understand just what it means that they had once experienced a "strange warming" of the heart (which is a wonderful consolation graciously given by God) - and on the other hand, to begin to acknowledge that the notion that our affections must be oriented entirely towards the love of the Lord in heart, mind, soul, and strength before we can be "altogether Christian" is a well-intentioned theology with unintended and yet potentially seriously negative consequences for the spiritual life (ie. confusion about salvation when affections do not remain strong, motivation for trying to "make something emotional happen" in prayer or in a worship service, and perhaps most common - the falsification of a constant state of purely loving affections - all upon which it seems that ones eternal salvation depends). Whether Wesley stuck to these ideas after the "New Birth" sermon or not, countless others stick to it today, and it can be a very confusing, disorienting, and stressful way of following Christ. I mean to point out this theology as an innovation of the last few hundred years, not a return to early Christianity. To your third point, I simply point you to a quotation from Thomas H McCall, on whose article I base most of this session, "How is regeneration related to justification? For Wesley, justification logically precedes the new birth, but they share a temporal beginning." For this statement, he footnotes Wesley's "Sermon 42." While it is likely true that Methodist theology steps away from this theology in their ordo salutis, and even Wesley contradicts this in his journal (I trust you are correct), I am drawing this point from the scholar I was using as a source. In the end, I appreciate correction about Methodism or the later Wesley, but the session was meant to place this more modern theology in the context of ancient theology (over the entire course) where affections and experiences of God were considered consolations and gifts of the Lord, but not not to be grasped or even sought out. Iespecially mean to help those in my congregation who remain burdened with confusion about not having had a sufficient warming of the heart, not having a sudden and persistent conversion of affections, or who have a difficult time resting in the corporate and sacramental life given to the Church by our Lord (because of warring and contradictory theologies in their minds) and letting affections take care of themselves.
@@theanglicanchurchofsaintge9472 Thank you for your kind response. I would like to address several points for clarification: 1. Regarding your assertion that '[Wesley's] original meaning is what his influence is remembered for in the broader discussion of soteriology in the Protestant world' (though I would submit that the term 'initial' instead of 'original' would be more appropriate and more accurate), I must say that I do find this claim rather problematic. If Wesley’s initial view, that salvation rests solely upon the witness of the Spirit, is indeed what he is primarily remembered for, we would likely hear more from Protestants of other traditions accusing Methodists of neglecting the doctrine of sola fide. For that would suggest that it is not merely faith that justifies and hence saves us, but rather the Spirit's witness of our faith that saves. Such a position seems quite a stretch and lacks sufficient evidence or statistical backing. Although I express this not to dismiss your anecdotal experiences of individuals converting from non-Anglican Protestant traditions to Anglican and Ecclesialists traditions, for it may indeed be true in your particular region. However, I would not think that these Christians come from a Methodist background, probably Pentecostals or nondenoms or Charismatics or some other traditions I suppose? 2. Concerning the 'confusion about salvation when affections do not remain strong', even if one were to grant that Wesley's soteriology rests solely upon the witness of the Spirit, which I don't, it is important to note that Wesley's own experience of his 'heart strangely warmed', as recounted in his journal entry of 24 May 1738, was not characterised by overwhelming emotional fervour, in fact, in that same text, he noted that there was no joyfulness at that moment, describing it more as a state of calmness and warmth rather than heightened excitement. Moreover, Wesley explicitly cautioned against overvaluing emotions on many an occasion. This is particularly evident in his letter to Thomas Maxfield in November 1762, wherein he stated, 'I dislike something that has the appearance of enthusiasm, overvaluing feelings and inward impressions... and undervaluing reason, knowledge, and wisdom in general.' So to place undue emphasis on strong emotions not only contradicts the principles of Methodism but also stands in direct opposition to Wesley's own teachings. 3. With regards to the quotation from Thomas H McCall regarding the absence of a temporal distinction between justification and regeneration, I have revisited 'Sermon XLII: Satan's Devices'. However, I seem to be unable to find any indication within that text that suggests such a lack of distinction. I have also discussed this matter with my priest, and we both concur that the sermon does not appear indicate this assertion. Though he has told me that he will study it further and get back to me for any updates. Thus, at least prima facie, it does appear that this assertion is, well, to phrase it more charitably, not without dispute. 4. Now, as you may have guessed, I am commenting as Methodist. In light of your reply, it seems evident that the issues you have raised do not pertain to the problems inherent in Wesleyan theology itself, rather, they appear to emerge from non-Methodist Protestant traditions (or individuals) that have selectively appropriated elements of Wesleyan thought whilst neglecting other significant aspects. It is precisely this selective interpretation that seems to have led to the issues you have observed. So the concerns you have mentioned stem not from a genuine engagement with Wesleyan doctrine, but rather this incomplete perspective. I would therefore suggest that these concerns stem from non-Methodist Protestants holding an incomplete perspective rather than an authentic engagement with or adherence to Wesleyan teachings. Attributing these issues to Wesleyan theology is, consequently, somewhat unjust from a Methodist standpoint. It is like understanding only part of a tradition and misinterpreting it, much like blaming the Reformed tradition for hyper-Calvinism or suggesting that Roman Catholics worship Mary. Lastly, I wish to express my gratitude once more for your reply and for taking the time to actually read my comment, that is very charitable of you. And I sincerely hope that I do not come across as polemical or unreasonably confrontational. I also hope you can understand that as a Methodist, my intention in commenting is simply to ensure that Methodism is not misconstrued. All in all, God bless!
I look forward to this each week. One suggestion: I often cannot hear the questions from your audience, Fr. Paul. Could you repeat the questions before answering them. It helps with the context of you answers.
Great content, Fr. Paul. One thing that would help those of us watching online is if you repeat the questions from your congregation. It's difficult to hear them.
I am truly exited about this series. Thanks, Fr. Paul!
This is a great video, so encouraging to see the advance of the Kingdom. Learned a lot in this one.
Praying for all of you at St George’s as you move forward!
Praise be to God!
promo sm ✅
Alright, let’s get the tech stuff fixed!
Good stuff.
What a great sermon!
The audio is extremely difficult to hear.
If only you'd write a book, Father Paul. In all my readings, I do not learn as much as I do in your short (too short) classes.
My brain hurts. Thirty years of Reformed theology, and then you come along. My. Brain. Hurts. (But, not my heart.)
Saved by faith alone which is proven by works, so Sola Fide still applies. BTW: Can I submit my 100 questions to help you cover the next 30 or so Answers for Anglicans sessions? 😃
One church father, which one I cannot remember, stated that a bishop was in apostolic succession only if he was teaching what the apostles taught. So, I suppose if a bishop had a thousand hands laid upon him and the line went back 1000 generations, if he was not teaching what the apostles taught, he was not in the succession. Not power, but content. No need to run to Rome begging for the acceptance of our orders. The order is there in the teaching of the apostles. (Also no need to run to Istanbul for confirmation of the succession.) We need to be more sure that the Gospel is being rightly preached rather than genealogy. Really, Father Paul, you ought to be writing books. (With pictures, for dummies like me. 😁)
The sound isn’t working on this one 😢
Father Paul, you say so much in such a short period of time that I can barely unpack it all.
The sermon hit home, Father Paul, at least in this poor soul. Thank you and thanks be to God.
OK, sound dude, add a microphone to the pulpit! 😃
A cool thing that could be added to these videos is in the description to which could be entered the address of the church, the website, and a link to where to buy the BPC.
What marvelous and insightful thoughts on this passage in the Gospel of John. How encouraging to meditate upon Jesus as our Groom and that we are married to Him. Weak wine = the law; Good wine = the Gospel. Usually, I wonder why so many Anglican sermons are so short when there is so much to say about any passage of Scripture, but I believe this one sermon packed in so much that was worthy of the message within the Wedding of Cana. Thank you, Father Paul.
Augustine's long journey, by grace, from despising the Old Testament to seeing the unity of the Scriptures. I heard Law & Gospel and the Analogy of Faith. I heard an obedience to Paul's command to Timothy to "Preach the Word!" Thank you, Father Paul for this message.
Father Paul, your mic was off during your sermon.
"Go to the altar rail I will show you, and show yourself to the priest." What a marvelous connection to other callings of God. This is an insight into the Scriptures I have never seen. I go to the rail because of the promise given, for what is offered there. I cannot grasp nor receive the benefit of the promise if I do not have faith enough to obey that calling.
Thanks, you Father Paul, for your exposition of the Word and the comforting truths of that Word that was brought forth by you.
Congratulations Josh!
✋ þrðmð§m
Thank you St. George's and Father Paul, for your ministry of Word and Sacrament.
Add a patreon for monthly donations!
🙏
Just wanted to let you know that I really appreciate you choosing to teach through this book. I’ve had a 3 year roller coaster ride with this book and have come down hard in favor of it and most things Rod Dreher. Our family is (wife and 6 kids) are actively changing course to incorporate Benedict Option aspects. I also appreciate seeing a faithful, bible loving church out there. I’m a Baptist from west-Michigan and I listen to your class every week. I might start dipping into your other classes too. Keep up the good work!
Thank you, Father Paul and members of St. George the Martyr, for your presence on RUclips. I enjoy catching up with your goings-on and am blessed to see that our sister churches are witnessing to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Almost forgot the sermon. Glad I can get a refresher. Thank you.