Great work River! Many thanks from across the ditch. One of the young guys in my men's 'Theology on Tap' group told me about your video. Again, great work. Thankyou brother!
Great scholarly overview. Very helpful. And also very encouraging to see proper treatment of the apocrypha, which are vital for placing ourselves in the shoes of the first century in reading the NT.
Worth noting: not only do Anglicans keep the apocrypha in full in our bibles, but the RCC took out the Prayer of Mannassah, and the two Esdras books. So we Anglicans now have a much larger bible than the RCC.
@@newkingdommedia9434 Pope Clement VIII placed 2 (4) Esdras in an appendix to the Vulgate along with 3 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh "lest they perish entirely". Clement died in 1605, after Trent, but before the Authorised Version. Baruch was often considered part of Jeremiah, hence it doesn't always appear as a separate book, the canonical lists of the Councils of Hippo (A.D. 393) and Carthage (A.D. 397) would be examples.A similar thing happens with Lamentations from time to time.
Personally I believe that the Deuterocanonical Books are inspired because there are so so many typological prophecies about Christ and the Church. Paul, James, and the author of Hebrews (I believe Barnabas), and even Jesus Himself quote from these writings, although in paraphrase. The Early Church saw these books as authoritative. "Apocrypha" is a term coined by Jerome because he did not want these books included in the Roman Canon, but he was overruled by the bishops. Although I am an Anglican, I agree with Augustine in his debate with Jerome in regard to the Scriptures. In any case, we need to be challenging Anglicans to get an Anglican Bible which include the "Apocrypha" in their Bibles.
Do you have any resources or make a video on the Anglican view of covenant theology? What is the view of the Anglican church on the covenant of grace vs covenant of works distinction? More specifically, do Anglicans agree with Presbyterians on the Westminister Confession's view of covenants being same in substance but different in administration?
I didn’t realize that the Book of Homilies made such bold statements about the Apocrypha being the Word of God. What does that say about the Homilies level of authority for Anglicans?
Thank you Father, for a very interesting presentation. Just one question - "How do you see the use of two verses from Tobit Chapter 4 in the Administration of the Lord's Supper in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer?" These verses are just grouped together with other scripture verses to be read during the Offertory. These verses seem to be clearly making a teaching point almsgiving.
@newkingdommedia9434 My question is, do these verses teach doctrine about almsgiving or are these verses just "example of life and instruction of manners" concerning almsgiving. Perhaps I need to read your book!
What's the Anglican view of the Lord's Day rest? Also, what do you think of the collect in the ACNA 2019 BCP which pretty much says that Saturday is still the Sabbath?
The Homilies affirm a Sunday sabbath. I have argued in a sermon on John 5, which is on my channel, that we must have a day of rest every six days, but this doesn't have to be on a specific day, and also that we must worship God as a church every Sunday
And who has authority to declare that person as authority, and who declared that person, and who declared that person? And who ever said that if the 1st person was declared, that this means the 20th somehow adopts that authority for themselves? Who has authority to declare that authority is passed on and by what means? What magical powers does "authority" have that makes their decisions ACTUALLY correct? Are they not just fallible humans like everyone else? The whole point of having scripture is that scripture corrects the people we deem as authorites. It is the only way we get to hold fallible people accountable to the actual word of God. Not the other way around. Once we label some entity as the authority, we strip away all accountability and strip away any ability to test them or correct them or remove them for being a terrible authority. You don't need authorities to tell you everything, you just need quality study and the wisdom of counsel. In other words, this whole point is a logical and perhaps philosophical cunundrum. No matter what you decide for yourself must be your authority, it is YOU who decided it. Doesn't that make you the ultimate authority? After all, it is you who chooses what you will believe or not believe in the first place. I don't have any problem submitting to the understanding of the church on things that aren't clear. They have the ordination and calling from God to extract the scriptures and teach them and study and answer questions and they are under double-judgement to make sure they do it as rightly as they are able. But no matter what, you are also responsible for what you believe, because what you believe is up to you. You are that final authority whether you like it or not. This east/west fight about ultimate authorities, even to the point of infallible authority, is a farce. Jesus never declared any Christian would be infallible or an ultimate authority. What I think is happening is that people have such panic attacks over the slightest doubt about a thing, that they go searching for somewhere to park their brains so they don't have to think any more. By the mere wishful thinking of it, if they declare their ultimate submission to whatever they deem is infallible authority, this releases them from doubt and makes them feel safe. But it is a false god, an idol, that we should seek such a thing. Far be it from us to elevate a sinner to such a status just so we can feel comfort and pretend there is no more doubt.
Honestly, I don't understand why a contradiction in the Anglican divines would matter… people change over time. Even if they didn't, one or two divines saying the Apocrypha are canonical cannot reasonably overrule 20 that say they are not canonical. But I see that commonly among Roman Catholics like with what you have described with the Anglo-Catholics. One inconsistency or one contradiction doesn’t prove you get to jam all your assumptions into something. It doesn’t even mean you can say it is an inconsistency.
It’s not exactly true that the New Testament isn’t quote in the apocrypha. In fact, the apocrypha is referenced in the New Testament. The Lutherans (LCMS) released an ESV apocrypha study edition by CHP, that is worth while having on your bookshelf.
Great video, brother! It's apparent how much time and effort you've spent researching this topic.
Thank you brother!
Finally a full explanation of the Anglican viewpoint.
Brilliant timing, have been struggling with this quite a lot recently.
What about the issue have you been struggling with?
Looking forward to this.
Great work River! Many thanks from across the ditch. One of the young guys in my men's 'Theology on Tap' group told me about your video. Again, great work. Thankyou brother!
Great scholarly overview. Very helpful. And also very encouraging to see proper treatment of the apocrypha, which are vital for placing ourselves in the shoes of the first century in reading the NT.
Thank you brother!
Worth noting: not only do Anglicans keep the apocrypha in full in our bibles, but the RCC took out the Prayer of Mannassah, and the two Esdras books. So we Anglicans now have a much larger bible than the RCC.
Indeed! Although I didn't know they also took out Baruch.
@@newkingdommedia9434 Pope Clement VIII placed 2 (4) Esdras in an appendix to the Vulgate along with 3 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh "lest they perish entirely". Clement died in 1605, after Trent, but before the Authorised Version. Baruch was often considered part of Jeremiah, hence it doesn't always appear as a separate book, the canonical lists of the Councils of Hippo (A.D. 393) and Carthage (A.D. 397) would be examples.A similar thing happens with Lamentations from time to time.
What Bible translation contains these books?
@@TruLuannrsv
Personally I believe that the Deuterocanonical Books are inspired because there are so so many typological prophecies about Christ and the Church. Paul, James, and the author of Hebrews (I believe Barnabas), and even Jesus Himself quote from these writings, although in paraphrase. The Early Church saw these books as authoritative. "Apocrypha" is a term coined by Jerome because he did not want these books included in the Roman Canon, but he was overruled by the bishops. Although I am an Anglican, I agree with Augustine in his debate with Jerome in regard to the Scriptures.
In any case, we need to be challenging Anglicans to get an Anglican Bible which include the "Apocrypha" in their Bibles.
Do you have any resources or make a video on the Anglican view of covenant theology? What is the view of the Anglican church on the covenant of grace vs covenant of works distinction? More specifically, do Anglicans agree with Presbyterians on the Westminister Confession's view of covenants being same in substance but different in administration?
I didn’t realize that the Book of Homilies made such bold statements about the Apocrypha being the Word of God. What does that say about the Homilies level of authority for Anglicans?
Thank you Father, for a very interesting presentation. Just one question - "How do you see the use of two verses from Tobit Chapter 4 in the Administration of the Lord's Supper in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer?" These verses are just grouped together with other scripture verses to be read during the Offertory. These verses seem to be clearly making a teaching point almsgiving.
Thank you! Yes my article mentions those as well. It's another example of the Apocrypha being treated like Scripture liturgically.
@newkingdommedia9434 My question is, do these verses teach doctrine about almsgiving or are these verses just "example of life and instruction of manners" concerning almsgiving. Perhaps I need to read your book!
Do you have a Bible that includes Apocrypha you’d recommend?
What's the Anglican view of the Lord's Day rest?
Also, what do you think of the collect in the ACNA 2019 BCP which pretty much says that Saturday is still the Sabbath?
The Homilies affirm a Sunday sabbath. I have argued in a sermon on John 5, which is on my channel, that we must have a day of rest every six days, but this doesn't have to be on a specific day, and also that we must worship God as a church every Sunday
@@newkingdommedia9434 Amen ! We worship on the "8th Day", the first day of the New Creation week; Sunday, and then every week we have a Sabbath.
One of my Bibles contains the Apocrypha, my others don't. I read them and see them as the BCP says.
The question isn’t who has or does not have this or that book. But rather who has the authority to decide.
And who has authority to declare that person as authority, and who declared that person, and who declared that person? And who ever said that if the 1st person was declared, that this means the 20th somehow adopts that authority for themselves? Who has authority to declare that authority is passed on and by what means?
What magical powers does "authority" have that makes their decisions ACTUALLY correct? Are they not just fallible humans like everyone else? The whole point of having scripture is that scripture corrects the people we deem as authorites. It is the only way we get to hold fallible people accountable to the actual word of God. Not the other way around.
Once we label some entity as the authority, we strip away all accountability and strip away any ability to test them or correct them or remove them for being a terrible authority.
You don't need authorities to tell you everything, you just need quality study and the wisdom of counsel.
In other words, this whole point is a logical and perhaps philosophical cunundrum. No matter what you decide for yourself must be your authority, it is YOU who decided it. Doesn't that make you the ultimate authority? After all, it is you who chooses what you will believe or not believe in the first place.
I don't have any problem submitting to the understanding of the church on things that aren't clear. They have the ordination and calling from God to extract the scriptures and teach them and study and answer questions and they are under double-judgement to make sure they do it as rightly as they are able. But no matter what, you are also responsible for what you believe, because what you believe is up to you. You are that final authority whether you like it or not.
This east/west fight about ultimate authorities, even to the point of infallible authority, is a farce. Jesus never declared any Christian would be infallible or an ultimate authority. What I think is happening is that people have such panic attacks over the slightest doubt about a thing, that they go searching for somewhere to park their brains so they don't have to think any more. By the mere wishful thinking of it, if they declare their ultimate submission to whatever they deem is infallible authority, this releases them from doubt and makes them feel safe. But it is a false god, an idol, that we should seek such a thing. Far be it from us to elevate a sinner to such a status just so we can feel comfort and pretend there is no more doubt.
Honestly, I don't understand why a contradiction in the Anglican divines would matter… people change over time. Even if they didn't, one or two divines saying the Apocrypha are canonical cannot reasonably overrule 20 that say they are not canonical.
But I see that commonly among Roman Catholics like with what you have described with the Anglo-Catholics. One inconsistency or one contradiction doesn’t prove you get to jam all your assumptions into something. It doesn’t even mean you can say it is an inconsistency.
Where can one find out who wrote which Homilies?
It’s not exactly true that the New Testament isn’t quote in the apocrypha. In fact, the apocrypha is referenced in the New Testament. The Lutherans (LCMS) released an ESV apocrypha study edition by CHP, that is worth while having on your bookshelf.
Where is the apocrypha quoted in the New Testament
@@TomPlantagenetbook of Enoch mentioned somewhere
@@LanguageBLOX1_Alt it’s an allusion, not a quote
you look so dripped up in this
It would be less confusing to say Canonical Non-Scripture