How Anglicanism is Protestant
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 дек 2024
- Sometimes people claim that Anglicanism is not a Protestant tradition, in this video, River Devereux explains how it is and why Protestant theology is the solution to the problems faced by the Anglican Communion.
Please Subscribe and like this channel on Facebook:
/ newkingdomblog
Related articles:
newkingdom.med...
newkingdom.med...
Recommended reading:
J.I. Packer: The Heritage of Anglican Theology
Ashley Null (series Editor): The Reformation Anglican Series
John Jewel: An Apology of the Church of England
Gerald Bray: Anglicanism: A Reformed Catholic Tradition
Watched this. Totally agree. Love it.
River you are such a great teacher. I have learned so much from your videos. Please keep up the faith and I'll be praying for your ministry during my daily office.
Thank you very much!
Every Anglican needs to watch this. Excellent.
Really? when his main argument is that the Reformation was ordained by God. Every revolutionary will claim that for their cause.
Right....all 14 of them left.
@@capone70 There were 7,000 who did not kneel to Baal, neither will we kneel to any other but Christ.
@@Thatoneguy-pu8tyAmen
Well done. I have recently been curious about Anglicanism and what it stands for? It isn’t easy to find much clarifying content that is easy to understand. Thank you for making it easy to understand and I really appreciate and agree with the bases of what you have just shared concerning the historical and biblical bases of what Anglicans believe. Amen to the truth.
So glad I found this! I'm a Presbyterian (PCA) but I have a special place in my heart for Anglican/Episcopalian and the Book of Common Prayer. I did attend Episcopal services for a time, many years ago.
I am really enjoying your teaching. Wow I am learning how Anglicanism stands for and the beliefs. May the good Lord continue to use you to teach the Truth for His Kingdom and for our benefit.
Wow River, that was awesome. I am an Anglican, and now proud of it! You have inspired me so much. I suppose I will now have to watch some of your other videos! May God Bless you too.
Stay as you are. You are an inspiration. Thank you for your videos, you have bought me back to the Anglican church. May God bless you as you go about the Lord's work.
My guy, thank you. That was excatly what i needed to hear.... that spacific connection between the protestant version of Papal Supremacy blew my mind... Holy crap
You just gained a Subscriber. I’ve been investigating Anglicanism for a little while and have gone a few
Sundays to new church plant in my town of the ACNA. Your videos are answering a lot of my questions. Thanks so much. God bless you.
I do believe i was meant to stumble upon your channel.. yahoo ty.
I was excited to see the book recommendation on J. I. Packer's book, two days after I read it! A suggestion, why don't you include book titles in the description of your videos for recommended reading? It could be helpful. Great video though, insightful and clear.
Good idea, I'll start doing that now.
I am enjoying your videos. Keep up the good work!
This is excellent. Thank you-especially for the last 10 minutes or so.
I am Lutheran and about to marry an Anglican. This video helped me a lot. I am not looking to convert my soon to be wife. I want us to better understand each other's church.
So if a Catholic chaplain in the British Army says a Requiem Mass for a soldier killed on active duty, then King Charles III says it’s a blasphemous fable?
Thank you for making this this was quite informative.
Thank you for reminding me again just why I'm protestant - and it's good!Blessings to you from Scotland.🙏🏴
All protestants are in error - and that's a fact.
There is no liturgical recourse for the protestants who have broken away from what had always been the Church's modus operandi regarding worship and the belief in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. You can easily ask any protestant about the various forms of liturgical rites throughout Church history to see what the true catholic or universal Church looks like.
Regardless of any dispute, debate, or disagreement that occurred in the Church, it is undeniable that the protestant revolution absolutely opened the door for secular relativism brought about by enlightenment philosophers. By becoming one's own interpreter of Sacred Scripture, every single facet of knowledge was brought under scrutiny. This is the fruit of protestantism and we now live in its repercussions and wake as we slowly recognize that objectively, there can be and only has ever been one true Church.
Excellent discussion. Thank you for sharing.
Also, the impression I get from the Formularies (as a whole) is that Anglicanism is a decidedly "Protestant-Catholic" way of faith. 'Catholic' in terms of worship and structure, but 'Protestant' in terms of actual theology..
.. Now, with that said, the Church of England sort of stops with "Protestant", it doesn't attempt to take a strict stand on the inter-Reformation fights but allows for a "big tent" that is definitively Reformational.
So while some may interpret the Formularies as more specifically "Evangelical-Lutheran" and another more "Reformed-Calvinist" and yet another, "Wesleyan-Arminian".. they are all nonetheless fully within the pale of the Reformation tradition and thus tolerated as legitimate (though not ultimate) expressions of Anglicanism.
This is what makes Anglicanism different from other Confessional traditions (such as my own or the Westminister).. 'Protestant' is enough for Canterbury.
My two cents.
I recognize that I’m responding to an old post. God bless your ministry by the way!
I think that by the way you describe and define Catholic (ancient worship style or polity, ect.) is correct. Now I think that Roman Catholics are not truly Catholic because some important parts of their worship and liturgy is false. It is not apostolic. It did not come from the Apostles’ teachings. Whereas, I assume your Anglican, and could agree that the liturgy of the BCP is truly Catholic because it adheres to the faith once delivered to the saints.
Now a point of order I wish Anglican clergy would remember more often. The root and true meaning of the word Catholic are two Greek terms which were a phrase “kata holos.” This meant according to the whole council of Scriptures specifically regarding to Jesus Christ and Christology. The other meaning was universality. Being Catholic is doctrinal and had nothing to do with polity or ancient liturgy, or 2-4th century patristics. You were either a Catholic and could recite the Nicene Creed or you were an Arian heretic and could not. We take the Trinity for granted nowadays. But a long time ago, for Christians, being Catholic meant more than a term thrown around to impress IFB Baptists!
The Reformers all called themselves true Catholics. They protested against “Romish” or “Popish” practices which are not proven or a repugnant to the Word of God. Anything retained was because it was believed acceptable according to the Bible.
Thank you from a Catholic who went to Anglican church first time today. I like your teaching a lot. (Papal is pronounced "paypul" the way.😊)
I'm a bit perplexed by that. High church Anglicans have a great deal in common w/ the RCC, but he was specifically talking about major differences here and no CAtholics believe in sola scriptura, or the main solas we as protestants follow.
Very Educational Thank you so much!
Interesting content. Thanks
Never underestimate the impact your videos are having.
Thank you brother
I really appreciate this…in my disillusionment with Baptist theology and practice and exploration of Church history, I have drifted much closer to Catholic interpretations, almost coming to desire to fully disown my association with Protestantism for “Anglo-Catholicism” in the sense of the version that rejects Protestantism yet this has rekindled the beauty and more authentic interpretation of Protestant beliefs especially in the historically and doctrinal sense that seems to have been largely lost or downplayed in Protestant circles in the 21st century instead of highlighting their discrepancies and distinctions with the malpractices of the Catholic Church that rightly were criticized and reformed. Thank you for making these distinctions and the value of Protestantism and how Anglicanism is truly the Via Media “middle way” between the best of both the Protestant and Catholic traditions and in how the Church is and ought to be truly unified around the pure love of God in our hearts and lives in our pursuit of holiness and Christ’s refinement of our souls
In the first 300 years, there were circulating books that were inspired and books that were of men, and much disagreement as to which was which. A body with divinely guaranteed authority was required to discern and proclaim which books were to be discarded. Similarly, the same authority is required to rule on the various interpretations of Scripture. Christ does not confuse.
This is really good. I think that the tendency in high church Protestantism as of late is to recoil from the term.. but I think the term is often misunderstood to be incompatible with "catholic", which is fundamentally important to our identity as Christians.
At the same time, we did go through the Reformation and that is equally significant. Perhaps it's time to work on recapturing "Protestant" as much as we've emphasized recapturing "Catholic."
So rather than saying "Catholic vs Protestant", we need to think in terms of "Roman Catholic vs Protestant-Catholic, or Reformed Catholic."
But there is no such church as 'Roman Catholic Church'. It does not exist!
The adjective 'Roman' was a derogatory term used by sixteenth century Protestants to identify those Catholics who stayed true to the Church and to the Bishop of Rome.
The original Church, circa 33AD, was called, and still is called, the Catholic Church.
Thank you for your informative videos. I too live in NZ and I am excited to hear you are of the Confessing Anglican movement. I would love to know if thete are any Confessing Anglican churches in the Whanganui and Manawatu regions?
You can find which CCA church is nearest to you here:
confessinganglicans.nz/find-a-church-2/
Outstanding!! Thank you.
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he should desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”-St. Cyprian of Carthage (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]
Reading Packer rn! The series is on my wishlist as well, and while the late Packer is more an endorser for Puritanism as I, he's a fantastic and blessed writer and thinker for the Anglican tradition (editor of the ACNA Anglican Cathechism & ESV Study Bible, among many others)
I am Church of England, therefore I am Protestant. I am not a RC hater, but I believe our way is the correct way. I am married to a RC and my children are RC.
And this is why Protestant men are weak today, they marry Catholics and allow the children to be Catholics, no cojones.
@@YourBoyJohnny94 when I married, and my children were baptised, I had already lost my faith, so it didn't matter to me. When I lost my faith it was like a light being switched off, no emotion. It took many years for the light to switch back on. My cojones are just fine. Maybe it's yours that are a tad small.
@@lakaylee1 Most Catholics don’t even believe in God yet they still have their children baptized in the their Church, why are you SO weak in allowing that? “I lost my faith so I didn’t care” spoken like a beta spouse.
Good video
I know this is an older video, but thank you for explaining. I am in a situation where I want to attend church, but I am Protestant, and my husband is Catholic. I've become disillusioned with many Protestant churches today with their feel-good prosperity gospel and the fact that you feel like you are at a concert every Sunday morning (I miss the hymnals that I grew up with and the more preaching than singing), their infighting between denominations, the inclusion of LGB as members of the clergy, etc. My husband no longer identifies as a Catholic in the sense of Roman Catholicism, but he wants to attend a church that still has some traditions regarding the style of worship. I have been researching, and I feel that Anglican might be a church that could meet our spiritual needs. It still has some worship-style traditions that he would be accustomed to, but it would still be Protestant for me. Last night, I was doing genealogical research, and I noticed that I have a few English and Irish ancestors who were Anglican, so perhaps that's a sign I should return to the denomination of my ancestors. Unfortunately, I have noticed that some Anglican churches in the United States do allow same-sex marriage and don't consider it a sin. I must stay away from that.
The New Zealand Anglicans I met growing up in conservative Episcopalianism were like this young man, rock solid!
Watching the Coronation of King Charles III, I was struck by how much Protestant Theology was on view and the vows the King had to make in support of Protestantism. It added an extra dimension to my enjoyment, not just being a Brit but being an Anglican.
Except for the promise forced into the ceremony by parliament, I didn't see any. Indeed, most of it goes back before the Reformation.
I am glad you make this point clear because I have been sharing an undeniable statement: All protestants are in error - and that's a fact.
There is no liturgical recourse for the protestants who have broken away from what had always been the Church's modus operandi regarding worship and the belief in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. You can easily ask any protestant about the various forms of liturgical rites throughout Church history to see what the true catholic or universal Church looks like.
Regardless of any dispute, debate, or disagreement that occurred in the Church, it is undeniable that the protestant revolution absolutely opened the door for secular relativism brought about by enlightenment philosophers. By becoming one's own interpreter of Sacred Scripture, every single facet of knowledge was brought under scrutiny. This is the fruit of prostestantism and we now live in its repercussions and wake as we slowly recognize that objectively, there can be and only has ever been one true Church.
I think this is a worthwhile debate, and might I be so bold as to suggest 'How the Catholic Counter-Reformation Created the Enlightenment' by A Goy For Jesus and 'How Roman Catholics Contributed to the Enlightenment' by Jordan B Cooper as good starting overviews for a (respectfully) opposing view of this. If you 2x the audio like I do, you'll blast through both in a little over half an hour. God bless!
@Mic1904 thank you. I listened to dr coopers presentation. He focused primarily on one figure and then diverted to post reformation jesuit teachings of history and religion.
This is analogous to pointing at luther and then the following cohort of reformers. He thinks that proving catholics can err in human reasoning, that protestants are less to blame. Well, all protestant reformers were once catholic too.
Its not the institutions that cause modern debate and discussion on philosophical topics, that has always been a historical fact and property of us rational creatures. From augustine to abelard to aquinas to luther.
The point of claiming protestants have spurred the false hope of enlightenment thinking is not because contrary ideas did not already exist but it is because they dismantled the sole authority that appropriately discerns and guides rational souls amidst a world of ravenous wolves. This is the role of the one true Church and once again, honest Christian scholars of today are recognizing this reality.
No protestant church or authority has the available philosphical or theological means to confront todays modernism without referencing catholic and orthodox sources like aquinas or papal encyclicals of leo xiii or pius x.
@@Mic1904 Coopers argument wasnt convincing as it focused on one individual and then on post reformation jesuits... all protestants were once Catholic so those institutional arguments dont hold up.
Instead, its a fact that diverse debates and discussions were taking place, but protestantism dismantled the main authority of objective interpretation, thus, moral relativism and false ideologies could be more easily proliferated and accepted without skepticism
All that tragically and herecticalky happened after his death was spearheaded by Cramner and the young boy king Edward.
Nailing it mate! I don't think walking away from our brothers and sisters is the most elegant solution, a more persuasive perspective is available to us.
Im in England and am interested in Anglicanism. Its tge main church here. Im ex orthodox, having embraced the Gospel i need to find a church. But im not sure about all the liberal chaos in Anglicanism and its hierarchical structure.
Lutheran or Anglican churches will fit you well
I thought this was where the term Protestant originated namely a protests against the Holy Roman Emperor not against the Pope rejecting Luther:
In 1526, a meeting of the Reichstag (in practice, a form of German imperial parliament) issued the Recess of 27 August, stating that each individual government within the empire could decide which religion they wished to follow. It would have been a triumph of religious freedom, had it lasted. However, a new Reichstag which met in 1529 was not so amenable to the Lutherans, and the Emperor canceled the Recess. In response, the followers of the new church issued the Protest, which protested against the cancellation on April 19th.
There is no doubt from the Anglican formularies that Anglicans are axiomatically Protestant. With the exception of John Henry Newman who abandoned the faith of the Anglican formularies, the Tractarians were calling attention to the fact that the English Church was not a sectarian church under the control of the secular state but rather a continuation of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that came to Britain during the Roman Empire even though the English Church was now no longer under under the authority of the Bishop of Rome.
Proud anglican from India♥️
I Charles, do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne, uphold and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law.
As an Anglo-Catholic, you made some good points. I've been trying to say some of that for a while. The Episcopal Church has stopped seeing itself as a Protestant Church and started seeing itself as "Catholic Lite", or Roman Catholicism "without the guilt". It's almost like a reversed version of the "Anglican" Ordinariate, while the Ordinariate sheep-steals conservative Anglicans, woke Episcopalians sheep-steal liberal Roman Catholics. And in the end, the liberal faction of the Episcopal Church defines itself more by what it's not than by what it is, standing for nothing at all. I'm reminded of when I took confirmation class at a liberal Episcopal church, we got this lecture about how the Bible "contradicts" itself and how it's not infallible. Well, if we don't believe in Papal infallibility, and we don't believe that the Bible is infallible, then how do we know what is true about God? They didn't answer me, they thought I was taking up too much time with my questions. . So much for the "thinking man's church!"
Although, it must be noted that Luther did not leave the Roman Catholic Church willingly, he was kicked out after trying to reform it from within. I must admit jumping to the ACNA is very tempting, but as of now I stay in the Episcopal Church (at a different Parish, of course), because if I left, that would be like surrendering to the liberal faction of the church. There would be one less pesky conservative in the way of them, allowing them to further destroy the church. As Anglicanism is protestant, it's equally catholic, so we should hesitate to break fellowship as often as the other protestants do. What made me become Anglican was how united it was, even the ACNA collaborates with the orthodox faction of TEC. Meanwhile, the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod clergy won't interact with any of the 40(!) other American Lutheran bodies with a 10 foot poll. I don't want 40 isolated Anglican denominations in one country, and I doubt God does either.
HISTORY OF THE CHURCH, FROM THE BEGINNING - SINCE 33 AD, AND ITS CONTINUITY UP TO NOW AND TILL THE END OF TIME- IS STILL ONE, AND THE SAME, AS CHIRST HIMSELF WILLED TO BE ONE. HE BUILT THE ONLY ONE CHURCH.
@@AdFontes8701 Lay off the caps lock, Boomer.
In your closing comments, you said that you would probably lose some followers. For being challenged to look into our faith? Faith isn't easy, we need people who aren't afraid to stand up for it. Yes, I do struggle, thank you for helping in my journey. God bless 🙏
Selling indulgences in the 21st century? Hardly.
Luther and his fellow reformers did not understand the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist because they did not understand that the Sacrifice of Calvary transcends space and time. And they did not understand the Semitic concept of memory - the concept in the New Testament, which means bringing a past event into the present. So the Eucharist is a re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary, that unique event in space and time, in our own space and time.
As I understand it, the Articles of Religion are not binding on clergy or lay people in any church in the Anglican Communion. So it is somewhat problematic to talk about "Anglican theology" when no Anglican is obliged to accept the only commonly agreed statement of theology.
This was a very informative teaching. I'm a Protestant who isn't sure of my denomination, and I never really conceptualized Anglican as Protestant. Then again, I have never really known much about Anglicanism at all. I just saw it as being like the Roman Church, except in England 😛
In the first 300 years, there were circulating books that were inspired and books that were of men, and much disagreement as to which was which. A body with divinely guaranteed authority was required to discern and proclaim which books were to be discarded. Similarly, the same authority is required to rule on the various interpretations of Scripture. Christ does not confuse.
Does it says SOLA in a Bible ? Or Luter add it ?
does it say trinity in the bible?
I am an Anglican (Episcopalian)
thanks! i liked the video--but I'm a little confused on your interpretation of Article 17. I don't see where it teaches perseverance of the saints.
I also don't think it's a central feature of Protestantism, since Lutherans and Arminians both reject it
Oh, actually--I think Article 16 explicitly rejects perseverance of saints!
"After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin, and by the grace of God we may arise again, and amend our lives."
someone who has received the Holy Spirit in justification can forsake this grace and depart from it, so clearly the Articles seem to pretty much deny explicitly the perseverance of saints
So I am English and I believe the Mass is a sacrifice. Which Church should I join?
Catholic or Orthodox.
John Jewel, "An Apology of the Church of England"
J.I Packer, "The Anglican Heritage"
Sorry to interject here, I'm only 2:25 minutes into what I know will be another great video. But can we clear up the what is a Catholic and what is a Roman Cathic question, first. I've only had this explained to me once but it must be made clear that all Christians are 'Catholics' like all thumbs are fingers but not all thingers are thumbs.
When we hear the word Catholic, people automatically think Roman Catholic.
But when we Protestants mean when we say 'Catholic and apostolic church..." in the creed, we actually mean something aside from Rome or its doctrine. Whereas people who call themselves Anglo-Catholic, are siding with Roman Catholics. Its all quite confusing but needs to be addressed at some point.
Back to the video 👍
I think the simplest explanation is that when Protestants like myself use the word catholic to describe ourselves, we mean "universal" which is what catholic actually means. For us, to call something catholic is to say that it is in accordance with the "universal" teaching of the Church before she fell into error.
However, sometimes people use it to mean "Roman Catholic, or similar" and essentially use it in such a way as to imply that Protestants cannot ever be catholic.
In reality, the Protestant reformers like Luther and Cranmer believed what they were doing was restoring the Church to actually being catholic and saw themselves as the true catholics.
There is no 'Roman Catholic Church'.
The first gathering/ecclesia of Christians, by the year 107AD, was known as the Catholic Church, and it continues to be called the Catholic Church.
The reformers in England liked to consider themselves still Catholic, but members of the 'Catholic Church IN England'. This eventually became the 'Church OF England'.
'Roman', 'Romanist' and 'papist' were derogatory terms coined as insults to identify those Catholics who stayed faithful to the True Church.
I realize that there are many Catholics, even clergy, who use that term, but they do so out of ignorance and should be corrected.
@@alhilford2345 Catholic is Greek for Universal. Ethiopian Orthodox Church developed separately from the Roman Catholic Church. Are they not part of the Catholic Church? The church militant in the world? Roman Catholics do not get to dictate and gatekeep the Greek word 'catholic'.
Do Protestant Anglicans use incense, statues, votives, and crossing themselves or are those just Anglo Catholic practices? I'm just wondering, bc I am a high church Lutheran (called Evangelical Catholic) and we do those things.
No we tend not to, though I personally cross myself at church and use incense in my private devotion.
I find it ironic that Anglicans claim Scripture as their authority, given the very origin of the Church of England, which was Henry VIII's desire to circumvent the Bible's prohibition against divorce and marry his eight wives...
I am not an Anglican but I enjoyed and agree with your comments. I used to attend an Anglican church, went to a Methodist School and was married in a Presbyterian church. I consider many of the Christian churches have lost their way. Woke and liberal, oh what's the term now? Oh that's right Inclusive. But as you have proven with your video the churches may be somewhat lost it doesn't mean the people are. And that's what a Protestant is.
Hello. Probably my commetn might sound disturbing and I apologize for that. The issue of the acceptance of the Holy Tradition of the historical Church, is indirectly related to the assessment of the sola fide and Protestant understanding of the works of faith which is related to the sola fide. There is a point of a contradiction of sola fide with the Holy Scripture which is the rejection of the works of faith for justification and for salvation.
Regardless of whether the free will is thought to be violated due to man being considered totally depraved like in Lutheranism and Calvinism, wherefore he is considered unable to accept with his free will the grace’s gift of faith which precedes its acceptance by man’s free will (Acts 18:27, John 6:44) and so his will is violated by the grace (the teaching of the irresistable grace in Calvinism where some are considered predestined for salvation and others predestined for damnation), or that the free will is not violated regarding the acceptance of the grace which precedes its acceptance by the free will like in Evangelicalism, in both cases and in Protestantism as a whole the works of faith are not considered necessary for salvation together with faith by grace.
Grace is accepted or rejected with the free will - Luke 7:29-30 in relation with 1 Timothy 2:4:,,When they heard this all the people and the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John; 30 but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.“ (Luke 7:29-30, Orthodox Study Bible); ,,For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, † 4who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.“ (1 Timothy 2:4, Orthodox Study Bible). The works of faith are impossible to do without God’s grace:,,But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.“; ,,“I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.“ (1 Corinthians 15:10, John 15:5, Orthodox Study Bible), so they are Christ’s merits and are not solely our works. And the calling of God’s grace precedes the will to do those works:,,Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; † 13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.“ (Philippians 2:12-13, Orthodox Study Bible). The fruits are the good works:,,that you may walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing Him, being fruitful in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God;“ (Colossians 1:10, Orthodox Study Bible). As the works of faith are impossible to do without God’s grace, they are gifts of God.
The believers will be held accountable for not doing the works of faith:,,Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; a and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit.“ (John 15:2, Orthodox Study Bible). That is why the believers will be judged not only according to their faith (John 3:18) but also according to their works (John 5:25-29, Matthew 16:27, Revelation 2:23) in the sense of rejecting God’s grace because the works of faith are done in synergism with God’s grace and are impossible to do without God’s grace (1 Cor. 15:10, John 15:5), wherefore their rejection is a rejection of God’s grace and so the rejection to do them is punishable - Matthew 25:41-46 in relation with John 15:2:“Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: † 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’ 44 “Then they also will answer Him, a saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (Matthew 25:41-46, Orthodox Study Bible). Therefore the works of faith are necessary for salvation which is clearly stated in James 2:24:,,You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.“ (James 2:24, Orthodox Study Bible).
The works of faith that are done in synergism with God’s grace and doing of which is necessary for salvation (John 15:2 in relation with Matthew 25:41-46) are the ones referred to in James 2:24 as necessary for justification. Therefore man is justified not by faith alone but also with the works of faith but not in the sense thet they add something to Christ's Redemptive Sacrifice because that is impossible since they are done in synergism with God ‘s grace without which they are impossible to do (1 Cor.15:10 in relation with John 15:5) and so are Christ's merits (John 15:5). As far as I know Methodism accepts the synergism regarding the works of faith but still considers them as only sanctifying man and necessary for justification which is in contradiction with James 2:24 in relation with John 15:2. As the works of faith that are impossible to do without God's grace, are necessary for justification (James 2:24) and salvation (John 15:2), one is not saved when he or she has come to believe but is being saved through his or her whole life because the works of faith are done until a believer dies.
The works that are not necessary for salvation are the works of the law:,,Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. †“ (Romans 3:20, Orthodox Study Bible); ,,I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.“ (Galatians 2:21); ,,You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.“ (Galatians 5:4). It is said to the Gentiles that the grace and faith are gifts of God and not of works:,,For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, † 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.“ (Ephesians 2:8-10, Orthodox Study Bible). But the works here refer to the works of a believer prior to his coming to believe and the meaning is that faith is a gift and so is not conditioned by the works one has done before coming to believe.
The wrong Protestant understanding of the works of faith shows that the Holy Spirit is not received by the believers just by faith because He is the Spirit of truth (John 15:26) and where He is, there cannot be any wrong teachings. Therefore He is received by the believers through the prayer of the priesthood with apostolic succession like He was received at first through the prayer of the apostles:,,Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, † 15 who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16 For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. † 17 Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.“ (Acts 8:14-17, Orthodox Study Bible). Therefore, although all believers are holy and royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:5,9), there is a distinction between laymen and priesthood as priesthood is a gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:17, 28 in relation with 1 Peter 5:1-2). Hence salvation is in the historical Church with her priesthood with apostolic succession, wherefore the priesthood is a gift from God that is given through the laying on of hands and prayer since the time of the apostles, wherefore the apostolic succession has divine origin. And as the Spirit of Truth is only in the Church, the apostolic teaching is preserved intact only in the Church. Why the Church in which salvation is possible is only the Eastern Orthodox Church would probably be another topic.
I’m sharing this to my meme page. My only criticism is that Luther did not make a stand by leaving Rome of his own free will. Rome had him persecuted. I’m a conservative evangelical Episcopalian and I respect those who have left their established churches, but I think this is an important qualification historically.
How was Luther persecuted?
@@colinlavelle7806 He was excommunicated and would have been killed executed by HRE Charles V the same way that Jan Hus was killed
In the first 300 years, there were circulating books that were inspired and books that were of men, and much disagreement as to which was which. A body with divinely guaranteed authority was required to discern and proclaim which books were to be discarded. Similarly, the same authority is required to rule on the various interpretations of Scripture. Christ does not confuse.
@dash...:
Luther was trying to change doctrines to suite his own opinion but the Church could not permit that.
He was given opportunities to repent, but refused to recant and thus cut himself off from the Church.
I am a convert to the Episcopal Church here in the US. Over my 25 years as an Episcopalian, I have observed that those who do not view themselves as Protestant, frequently display a certain kind of exclusivity and exclusionary mindset, almost bordering on a snobbishness against Protestants.
Im Irish catholic personally.
You are correct sir!
God bless you xxx
Very interesting and well put together video. I think what you have said ratifies my decision not to call myself *an* Anglican but use Anglican as a pure adjective qualifying my Catholicism as an Anglican Catholic of the Continuing Movement. We, of course, left the Anglican Communion over issues of doctrine and thus do not adhere to the authority of the Articles or the Homilies. We do use the Book of Common Prayer but interpret it through the Catholic understanding rather than allowing it to shape our Theology.
While we do reject the Supremacy and Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope, we also do offer the sacrifice of the Mass, allow people to hold to Transubstantiation (like me!) and are not Sola Scriptura, so under your definition, I don't think we count as Protestant unless you regard the Orthodox Church as being Protestant albeit 500 years earlier. We're not in communion with the Lutherans either. I personally say the Mass using the Sarum Rite from which Archbishop Cranmer obtained many of his prayers for the Book of Common Prayer.
I also wonder whether some of the Anglo-Catholic rejection of Protestant has to do with it being used as an umbrella term which the RCC use to dismiss those who don't agree with them. You often here them say "Protestants believe..." and then construct an argument rejecting, for example, the Zwinglian understanding of the Mass and declare that the same argument holds to the Lutheran understanding based on the fact that they are both Protestant. It's misleading whether Lutherans or Zwinglians are allies or not.
I understand that many people reading this comment will say that, given what I have written above, I am not an Anglican. I am most comfortable with that. They may object to my use of the adjective Anglican, but given its appearance (ecclesia Anglicana) long before the Reformation, and the Anglican mindset we have sought to continue, I am comfortable that people may disagree with me there but that I have no need to defend myself against their disagreement.
I love your broadcasts, and find most of your talks very accurate, except for Predestination. I cannot believe that the Lord determined our destination before we were born. I do believe the Lord knows if we will have faith in Christ or not, but he does determine it. We have Free Will.
Amazing. As someone who is about to the point of leaving the United Methodist Church, even though my church voted to leave the denomination, there are just too many open paths for us to slip up and follow men instead of scripture. I have been attending an online weekly bible study with an Anglican Church and have felt more at home with the body of Christ than I have for a decade or so. I think this is the Holy Ghost pulling me back to the real truth. Sola scriptura. God's peace brother!
Join us, brother!
My neighbor is a UMC Pastor; he won’t even speak to you if you don’t follow his progressive party politics.
It was Cramner who evilly talked Henry out of receiving the last Sacraments of the Catholic Church though he devoutly wanted them
Great video. But why do you guys still have "priests" if there is no eucharistic sacrifice? Why an altar?
I read a book authored by Archbishop or Bishop it escapes my mind now. It explained that we Catholics should always call ourselves Roman Catholics (our Father is in Rome the Pope) because the Anglican call themselves catholics. Wow this is a reassurance of what he said. Thank you for explaining it.
Byw, I am a cradle Roman Catholic.
Ask for directions to the Catholic Church anywhere in England, and it is very likely to be a Roman Catholic Church that you are sent to. Ask for "Church of England" if that is what you want.
@lucille...:
That archbishop/bishop was wrong.
There is no 'Roman' Catholic Church, just the Catholic Church.
today we see the pope bow to the UN. We here in Australia now have majority of state premiers proudly promote their catholic beliefs. Australia was set up on the church of England. our constitution was based on it. Based on the protestant beliefs. built on those beliefs. paid for and fought for with those beliefs. Now we see it all forgotten. And you my new found friend, explain a lot as to why. Its all cain vs able.
It make s a nice difference to the years gone by when premiers and prime ministers mostly graced the doors of CofE/Protestant Churches. What on earth do you mean Australia was set up on the CofE, that's only accurate as far as the fact that Australia was colonised by the British......who all tended to be protestants. There were catholics and other christans (and Jews I'm sure) among the arrivals on the First Fleet. Of course pride of place was always given to the CofE. Settlers were oblidged/encouraged to attend CofE services. Thanks goodness we 'see it all forgotten'. The Anglican Church has lost It's place here as the dominant denomination...having lost out to catholics. In my grandparents day there were advertisements in the newspapers for jobs stating 'Catholics need not apply' what an insult!
I think an important clarification on the rejection of the mass is that Protestants believe in and value the once for all sacrifice of Christ on the cross. We do not want to be overly subjective in our articulation of salvation. It's not that salvation is about us and our heart for Christ, but that salvation is about Christ and His heart for sinners. We emphasize the objective, outside of us, once for all work of Christ for us in history as being of first importance. Later developments within Protestantism known as pietism moved piety from the ordinary means of grace in the visible church to the individual subjective experience in the affections. So I would be careful of characterizing Protestant faith as overly subjective rather than "extra nos". The Reformation recovered the glorious reality that our whole salvation is outside of us in Christ.
That said I appreciated you highlighting and clarifying the distinct issues that put Anglicanism squarely within the Protestant church. Love your work brother!
Anglicans requested its construction not Benedict...he as Peter, responded....
If only things "explicitly" mentioned in scripture are to be believed, then we must reject the doctrine of the Trinity.
Any genuine “Anglican” would equate Scripture with the Codex Amiatinus, produced in Jarrow or Monkwearmouth about 700 AD. Add on the Book of Baruch and translate it into English, and we have the Douai-Rheims Bible. Any comments?
So...instead of polarizing/offending claims to be either Catholic or Orthodox or Protestant or Evangelical....why not the option of confessing to be simply BIBLICALLY APOSTOLIC!!!!!!!
Any genuine “Anglican” would equate Scripture with the Codex Amiatinus, produced in Jarrow or Monkwearmouth about 700 AD. Add on the Book of Baruch and translate it into English, and we have the Douai-Rheims Bible. Any comments? Amiatinus is actually the oldest complete codex still in one piece.
Anglican Ordinariate allows Anglicans to be close to, respect and value the Petrine Ministry bringing their Anglican traditions with them...
Good stuff ! Dig our heels in and stand firm. Sola Scriptura. Why ? Because God said so. Pray the Lord continues to work in and through us.
Where ?
Sola Scriptura is never mentioned, nor is it even implied. The closest verse to it is 2 Tim 3:16 'All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness'. Note how it does not say ONLY scripture it says ALL. For you to pretend this verse or any others supports Sola Scruptura then you are not being honest with yourself or others.
As for Sola Fide or Faith Alone, again, this idea is not to be found in Scripture. Read James 2 verse 24 to see what God inspired the human author to write. We can not be saved without faith but that is agreed by all, the point is the alone part. In short, James (and Jesus himself) teach that faith AND doing (not your own works) but the will of the Father is what saves us. James tells us that even the demons believe in God but they are to be condemned...why? because they do not do the will of the Father as he then tells us how Abraham did God's will by offering his own son. James tells us that what Abraham did completed his faith and it's the combination of faith and works (doing God's will) that saves us.
I'm curious about your use of article 17 here. Mostly because I find it a baffling article. The first paragraph seems to set forth predistination in such a light as to affirm the perserverance of saints and reprobation of the unchosen, if only as a silent inference. Yet the second, pastoral, section, describes undue consideration of it by the ungodly or those who havent yet come to (been brought to) Christ as a "most dangerous downful", and something usable by the devil himself to thrust us into "wretchedness and most unclean living". Now, this is a confusing claim if the chosen are ever chosen an the unchosen are ever reprobate; where is the danger for the elect who God has chosen from any downfall? And where is the danger to those who will never truly come to Christ?
Thank you
Hi there, Anglo-Catholic here. I would say the theology of Anglo-Catholicism is reformed Catholic (not in a Calvinist sense), as many Anglo-Catholics partake in Marian devotion and intercession of the saints, veneration of icons with many holding to all 7 ecumenical councils, adoration of the Blessed Sacrament with a view of real presence that goes far beyond the Calvinist view of real presence, without mandating these theological concepts on the laity or adopting a legalistic sense of sin (i.e. mandatory auricular confession, mortal and venial sin etc). So Anglo-Catholics certainly wouldn't be protestant but rather a Catholic sub-sect (albeit not Roman) within the Protestant Anglican Communion. This theology isn't, however, mandated, but most people in Anglo-Catholic churches hold to these views. Obviously, mere non-communion with Rome wouldn't be classed as protestant as then all Orthodox, Coptic, and Assyrian Churches would also be Protestant when they obviously aren't. I personally hold to most Marian doctrines, pray the rosary, attend private confession and believe in the real objective presence of christ in the eucharist. But the benefit is it's not mandatory, as consistent with the Anglican tradition, there is provision for variation of views on non-essential doctrines (obviously some Anglo-Papists as I call them would say these are mandatory especially with their ecclesiology but I personally don't, so definitely the Anglican in me).
I tend to see Protestant theology as the cause of so many of the problems in the Anglican Communion, not the solution.
@New Kingdom Media
If only that which is biblically justified can necessarily belong to a Christian's faith, then this claim would logically also have to be found in the Bible itself, otherwise it could not be made, at least according to this line of argument. But this is not the case, indeed, it cannot be the case, because the biblical canon itself was only created when the individual books had already been written for a long time and the Christian faith had been handed down by other means, including through other writings. Thus sola scriptura is inconsistent. Certainly you are of a different opinion. But how do you substantiate this?
As a scholar of the English Reformation, who is writing a biography of John Hooper, I agree with you wholeheartedly until the last section regarding sola Scriptura. As Calvin understood in his principle of accommodation, God speaks to us in Scripture according to the understandings and contexts through which we're able to understand it. This is why we now believe slavery to be wrong where it wasn't seen that way in earlier biblical interpretation. The same is true when it comes to same-sex relationships, which were not understood in biblical times as we do today, especially with regard to the existence of sexual orientations. To insist that your reading of the Bible is the correct one and all others disregard its truths is no different than a pope declaring that only his interpretation is the correct one and so all must follow it to be doctrinally sound. Spong is an easy target but hardly typical. I know of no Anglican or Episcopal Church that disregards Scripture. Mine certainly doesn't. We wrestle with its meaning just as Christians have done throughout history. Your solution to the fracturing of the Anglican communion is actually the opposite of what should happen. There needs to be some understanding that one orthodoxy on social and cultural issues will never prevail in a changing world, and trying to insist that one can will only fuel dissension. (There has never been a static, orthodoxy regarding sexuality...ever.) Even Luther proclaimed at Worms that he could not go against conscience. The rest of your presentation is spot on. Anglican theology IS Protestant as the Thirty-Nine Articles make clear. Anglo-Catholics and the Oxford Movement have distorted its historical foundations. Many today have turned it into a superstition that rests largely on including elements that they like about Catholic ceremony and ritual, without realizing or caring about its doctrinal underpinnings. And so it stands to reason that there is often little interest in biblical learning. But works theology (including prayers for the dead), and clerical sacramental power are not part of authentic Anglicanism. And yes, it does most certainly matter.
Unfortunately, protestantism and Lutheranism is a slippery slope. I don't know about the Anglican Chuch in New Zealand, but in the USA, the ECUSA is in full communion with some patrts f the Lutheran Church, but there are parts of the Lutheran church which are not in communion with each other. Then, alas, the English and the Germans have had a few wars. Catholicism is also a slippery slope. I am downstream from the Union of Utrecht, the Old Catholic Church, which is in full communion witht the ECUSA.
Why would anyone consider themselves Anglican and Catholic? That sounds absurd 🧐
Not only is this a common norm in Anglicanism, but it's literally been so since the beginning (whether you choose to count that as the English Reformation and break from Rome, or even further back to the historic church of the British Isles).
Read Richard Hooker. To me Anglican distinctives are bishops, Apostolic Succession, and Cranmer's book of Common Prayer. Pax Christi.
I'm from Texas (Baptist county) but these past couple years I've been challenged with my views of the sacraments I'm currently going to an Orthodox Presbyterian church plant in the evening but last week started going to a ACNA church I have to say it was a beautiful service. I'm trying to learn more about the Anglican Church and your videos have helped tremendously.
Sadly, I hate to see how much liberal theology is destroying every denomination in this day from Presbyterian, Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, even the Southern Baptist are heading in that direction.
I'm thankful for godly men like yourself that stand up against such foolish teachings with boldness in the authority of God's word. If the Lord terries we'll look back at men like you who like Athanasius standing against Arianism will stand against the heresy of liberalism in the Church.
I had to leave my Baptist church here in Virginia because it went "woke". The Anglican church will remain a constant of Biblical truth.
As a baptised Catholic (as an infant) , I love your explanation of this facet of our great Christian Church.
Live and let live.
In the first 300 years, there were circulating books that were inspired and books that were of men, and much disagreement as to which was which. A body with divinely guaranteed authority was required to discern and proclaim which books were to be discarded. Similarly, the same authority is required to rule on the various interpretations of Scripture. Christ does not confuse.
The Anglican church in Canada is dying and the reason is exactly what you talked about. It no longer teaches or follows scripture.
I am Anglican. Only 2 minutes through and ready to rant on the role of Anglicanism in the Anglo-Catholic sphere. Via media. Das mittel. I love our neutrality.
The via media has been bastardized since the Oxford Movement and especially in the last 30 years.
It was never meant to have anything to do with Rome.
The 39 Articles took the best from Luther and Calvin. That's what via media actually is for Anglicanism. A half-way point between two neighboring reformed schools of thought.
@@erikwarde1818 that’s simply not based in historical fact. Via media was specifically defined and defended as a compromise and middle group between Roman Catholicism and Reformed continental Christianity. Anglicanism has always seen itself as both reformed and Catholic.
@@joshuaknight2019 no, the Via media was always between Lutheranism and Calvinism.
@@sandromnator this is correct. Since posting the original comment I have done some academic study on the English reformation. The idea of via media as between Catholics and reformed does appear in Anglican scholarship though, such as the Caroline divines and the Oxford fathers, but it’s original meaning was a religious compromise during the Elizabethan Settlement.
Anglo-Catholics confuse and blur the lines on our Protestantism, that’s the problem
I had a look at the back of my Catholic Church here in England to see what was for sale. Some Get Well cards, some rosary beads but no indulgences. In your church it used to be possible to buy advowsonships, but I believe they are no longer for sale either. Is that right? You didn’t actually declare your opposition to trading in advowsonships in your apparent compendium of Protestant beliefs. Would you like to set the record straight? I am also a member of St John’s College, Cambridge, one of the principal culprits as I would put it.
Disagree but loved your explanation.
As an old Reformed high churchman, I’m stuck between your low-church evangelicalism and Christian Wagner’s Tractarian tendency. Even though I can in good faith subscribe to the Canons of Dort, I completely disagree with your (intentional) collapsing the distinction between justification by faith alone and salvation by faith alone.
Firstly, I myself am a Reformed High-Churchman and would not say I'm Low-Church.
Also, Article 17 shows that Justification leads to Salvation since God predestines His elect to have both, and more importantly, Romans 8:28-30 makes this explicit. How can God justify someone and not save them? How can He condemn a just person?
@@newkingdommedia9434 How to do you reconcile abandoning the catholicity of the historic position that men can truly be regenerated, saved, and later fall away? Calvin was the first one who taught eternal security. I am worried when one trades catholic teaching for new teaching.
What type of Lutheranism are we actually in communion with? Tough to understand this point since the LCA has dogmatically thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
I know the Episcopal Church in America and the ELCA Lutherans have been in full communion since '99. Indian Anglicans as well as Anglicans in Zaire/Congo are part of umbrella Protestant churches in their countries. That includes Lutherans. Not sure how it is in other western countries.
A few centuries ago, there was a Scandanavian Lutheran movement that almost entered into a long term communion with the Church of England, but they pulled out because they thought some of the 39 Articles were "too Calvinist." Not sure if that relationship has since recovered.
@@erikwarde1818 The Porvoo communion established full communion with the Baltic and Nordic Lutheran churches
It is my opinion as a born and baptized Missouri Synod Lutheran wo is now a happy member of the local Anglican church that these two are quite similar in views and theology and are seen as "cousins" by each. It would not surprise me that they also share full communion with each other. Anglicanism is not at all aligned with ELCA Lutheranism. ELCA is aligned with and in communion with the Episcopal church, not Anglican.
John Henry Newman the very famous convert from (19th century) Anglican Priest to Catholicism & later a Cardinal stated 'to be deep in history is to cease to be a protestant' Newman's journey started with him being an evangelical (Anglican) and later Vicar of the University Church of St Mary the Virgin Oxford. He was greatly influenced by the Oxford Movement. Hi conversion was greatly influenced by his study of the early Church and the Church Fathers.
I would argue that the inclusion of humans who are non-hetero normative into the sacramental rites given to the majority is an example of the Holy Ghost at work.
See my community post on the issue of "new movements of the Spirit"
Yea but wouldnt it just be better to say you guys are Orthodox since you guys broke away from Rome but kept the Orthodox Catholic Christology?
The term protestantism is, to be fair, a poor term in terms of conveying the theological distinctives of a tradition, but it refers to those traditions which are heirs to the Reformation. WIth that standar understanding fo the term, quiblling about whether Anglicanism is protestant is just silliness, I don't care how anglo catholic you are
How can people not know that Anglicans aren't Protestant? Church of England,Henry VIII?
I'm raised Baptist,but I'm so far physically from any real Baptist churches in my part of the city I'm in. I've gone to an Anglican church and researched a few others in my city,and they're nowhere near what an Anglican church is or should be.
Those churches act like an Episcopal or non-denomination church. Anglican churches in the suburbs actually look and are more of an Anglican church. The ones near me are too woke,no traditional liturgy and don't look like they have any Anglicanism at all.