I am a non-reformed Anglican, and I love Doug Wilson. Just because I may disagree with him on a few things doesn’t mean that I can’t think he is such an awesome man. Who wouldn’t love him, and recognize his love for the body of Christ?
After faithful attendance for 40+ years in several very fine, conservative Presbyterian churches, we are now new Anglicans and flourishing. We use the 1928 version of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer and love it! We cherish Christ as our King in both theory and practice in every service. Our priest's expressed role is to draw back the curtains to reveal Jesus Christ and then hide in the folds. Soli Deo Gloria.
the 1928 book of common prayer is so beautiful, i feel sorry for my protestant brothers who have never experienced it!! They would all become anglican if they did.
You only lack one thing: to leave that imitation of a church whose appearances attract you so much, made by a proud, rebellious and lustful king, and join the true Church of Christ under the pastoral care and authority of the Apostle Peter ('Kefa' = rock in Aramaic) Mt 16:18-20: the Catholic one.
@@englishmansjournal2071 If you actually think laughing at him shows him as being a joke, imagine being stuck to a branch of Christianity founded because a thirsty king wanted a divorce.
Unless one lives in a city, the choices of where to plant your faith are limited. That is if they're going to be fully involved in the life of the church. So many of us are "stuck" in churches that leave us wanting for more and then searching for ways to fill that void outside the church they attend.
As a practicing Anglican who has close family tied to presbyterianism I did not find anything problematic about Doug Wilson's comments - it's a fairly bland but factual explanation of his personal liturgical preferences. Where he refers to 'Elevated' and 'Baroque' I would say we have a great emphasis on liturgy and Christian spirituality, connecting with the traditions of the desert fathers. Many (including many in the church) don't understand that the Anglican church is very much a protestant church and its history has been very much about bridging protestant theology with a continuing apostolic christian tradition - remember Cranmer, who wrote the first book of common prayer (1549) was burnt as a martyred under Mary's rule. One of the great misunderstandings was that the CofE was only about Henry VIII getting a divorce. In fact, Henry was a passionate explorer of faith and came to conclusion that the roman church hierarchy had become a barrier to this. As someone who spent several decades in a Anglo-catholic parish, I would also acknowledge that tractarians brought needed reform and balance to the C of E. Their movement brought not just a revival of liturgical practice but also motivated them to do good work among the poor of England. What I think Presbyterianism brings is a great interest in studying the bible and experiencing Christ on a personal level through prayer. So as Doug says, it is very much a matter of personal choice and how each resonates with you.
Duncan Unwin. Hi, fellow Anglican. I appreciate your comments. However, I think it can lead to misunderstanding to say that the Anglican church "is very much a protestant church". People can read into that that it is Lutheran, or Calvinist or Zwinglian, and many within the church have tried to make it so. However, I think the self understanding of the English reformers, and of the so called "High" and Anglo-Catholic theologians, is that it was about the English branch of the Catholic Church reforming itself and correcting some late mediaeval abuses and errors. It was not the Tractarians who introduced the Catholic understanding, it was there all along. Apostolic succession, baptismal regeneration, real presence of the Lord's Body and Blood in the Eucharist as a reality effected in a heavenly way by the divine Christ, and not something to be defined in terms of physical science as a merely material thing. That has always been there in the doctrine and in the Book of Common Prayer. It is a very common misapprehension of even many Anglicans that you can force ideas of European Protestantism onto Anglicanism. Certainly, there were turbulent times of Protestant excesses, with temporary suppression of things which legitimately belonged to true Christianity, and happily the 19th to early 20th centuries saw restoration of such things. On the doctrinal issues, an interesting work is "An Explanation of the Thirty Nine Articles" by Bishop Alexander Penrose Forbes (1871) The work was dedicated to E B Pusey, and is a comprehensive treatment of the Articles from a Catholic perspective. Forbes faced some resistance to his teaching of the Real Presence, but was vindicated. Other great 19th c. witnesses to the Catholic faith were Henry Parry Liddon, and also the non-Tractarian John William Burgon. They resisted the departures from orthodoxy which were arising in their day, and which sadly corrupted the church. including the Anglo-Catholic side of it. Such great champions of Scriptural and Catholic orthodoxy seem to be deliberately sidelined by the modernists who hold sway in the church.
@anselman Thank you for your considered comment. I have great sympathy for many of the position put forward by the Anglo-catholic revival which your have so well summarised. But while I feel drawn to this liturgical and spiritual approach, to see Anglicanism as a continuing spirituality stretching back to the desert fathers, the historical accuracy of this assertion is dubious. We need to only look at the founders of the new Church of England to see that they were truly protestants, dedicated to the removal of Roman influence. It takes a great leap to find Thomas Cranmer to be anything but the revolutionary, although one whose biblical and liturgical scholarship was such that he was able to preserve much of liturgical practices while jettisoning non-biblical-based theology. While not Lutheran I think it is very fair to compare and contrast the changes in England with those that had occurred and were occurring in Germany.
The thing about the Church is, that it is a monarchy, God is the king and he delegates his authority to the Church, and he appoints those who are to be the shepherds("leaders") over His flock(His people here on earth).
Fun fact Anglicans were the first to make the make the Bible available for common people or lay people as we call them legal and mass produced thanks to the Gutenberg Press. The other translations were not legal at the time. The vulgate claimed to be the first common language Bible but it was still inaccessible.
The Autistic Comedian - The preferred Bible during the reformation was the Geneva and it was the first complete bible printed in English. Same bible brought over in the mayflower and used by the Puritans.
The Gutenberg Bib was Catholic as he was a devout Catholic and decades before Protestatntism or Anglicanism even existed.Not to mention the Catholic Church ahs always had the Bible in various languages for almost 2,000 years.Koine Greek,Aramaic,Coptic,Ge'ez,Armenian,Chaldean,Syriac.Latin was simply used by the Roman Rite in the West
Well, perhaps if I lived during the English Civil War or in an area without an Anglican church, I'd be a Puritan instead of an Anglican -- I indeed love many Puritan theologians. Greetings from an Anglo-Reformed, commonly known as a 'Calvinist with a prayer book'!
I'm a Protestant, Evangelical, and Reformed Anglican. I fully affirm and believe the 39 Articles validate true Biblical expressions. And of course they were of course influenced by continental reformers like Calvin (who by the confirmed a "real presence," not on the table as Christ ascended to heaven, but by faith in one's heart through the sacraments). The Puritans on the other hand were very much more influenced by Zwingli in regards to sacraments, were against an episcopate church polity (so was Calvin on that matter) as they were the pre-cursors to the Presbyterian Church. They were also against wearing pagan wedding rings and were often very pharisaical in what they considered acceptable worship practices. The 1662 BCP is more reformed than any modern version; (all modern ones like the 1928, 1978, or even the ACNA 2019 have some Oxford Movement influences in them).
@@wesmorgan7729 I respectfully disagree. The 2019 is kind of rooted in the 1662, but not namely where I think it matters most, protestant theology. It's mostly rooted in the 1979 and the 1928. I use the 1662 for personal devotions and think I'm familiar with many differences. Views similar to mine are echoed by thousands of evangelicals, though we are currently the minority in "Anglicanism." Examples: 1. The 2019 BCP is very eclectic; creates divisions. 2. Too many prayers for the dead. 3. Lots of additional rites (Pastoral Rites) with anointing oils and a very obvious ceremony for auricular confession (p. 122-123). Very much shows a Romanist influence (nothing like the 1662 which dropped a lot of rites, see "Concerning Ceremonies, why some be abolished and some retained"). 4. The Eucharist liturgy follows the 1928/1979 instead of the clear Protestant theology of the 1662 (even if you use the ACNA's option to rearrange the liturgy like the 1662, still doesn't matter). Cranmer specifically ensured in the 1552 that there would be no language like "we offer you these gifts" and praying the Holy Spirit over the bread and wine. In the 1662, any hints of offerings, praise, ect. were all clearly removed or relocated from the Lord's Supper liturgy to ensure it was very clear to parishioners where the CofE stood. The ACNA's follows the 1928/1979 regarding this matter.
@@Psalm144.1 Thanks for these insights. I recently became Anglican, so I'm not too familiar with the specifics of what each BCP has. I definitely lean more Protestant theologically so I'm probably similar to you in that regard. I've read that the 1928 BCP draws from the 1662 version, but just modernizes (modernizes for that time) the language, but perhaps that's not entirely accurate. After looking into the background of the 2019 ACNA BCP, it does seem to derive its contents from the 1928 BCP moreso than the 1662 one. I definitely wouldn't say, though, that it derives from the 1979 version since it was created as a orthodox alternative to the liberal BCP created in '79. What church is yours affiliated with?
@@wesmorgan7729 The 28' was the first revision of the 1662; it was influenced by the Oxford / Ritualism Movement. First step in the wrong direction. The 28' is traditional language like the 1662. Both are easy to read. ACNA's "Renewed Ancient Text" (p.123) is similar to the 79' Rite 2. Noticeable but not critical; ACNA's slightly toned down the gravity of sin (Morning/Evening) prayer of confession, (1662, "have mercy upon us miserable offenders..."). This article published by the evangelical Church Society; sheds better light than me. Just replace the CofE "Alternative Services Book" and "Common Worship" with the ACNA's when reading. churchsociety.org/docs/churchman/112/Cman_112_2_Phillips.pdf
I think using the desert island scenario is useful for what it is, but it should not be used to establish a norm or lack thereof. Yes, the situation of a desert island is exactly why mainstream Reformed divines thought the Continental churches without monarchical bishops could be excused for lacking bishops; yet they held that historic episcopacy, and the threefold ministry of bishop, priest, and deacon, was what the Holy Spirit himself had shaped early on in the Church as the basic shape of regular polity in the postapostolic generations of the Church.
I find it interesting that a) He has a JC Ryle (Anglican) book on preaching behind the interviewer and b) His description of Anglican government as monarchical overlooks the historic episcopate as rooted in the diaconate (servanthood). Every archbishop was a priest who was a deacon. And he remains a servant. So the government and authority is both representative and hierarchical (see Acts) in the spirit of servanthood, not pure government. And in that, broader than he lets on or is aware of.
Dang this comment thread is salty. I've attended Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, CoC, Methodist, Brethren and all kinds of non denom/independent churches. I dont understand how y'all can be so jumpy about how others prefer to worship, especially on secondary issues.
The thing that I haven't found in any Anglican congregations and I would be happy to be proven otherwise is good sound teaching on postmillennialism, and the optimist viewpoint of God's current dominion, reign, and kingdom. All the anglican's I've met are amillennialist and are pessimists with regard to God's reign. Although I'm not sure it is true of most Presbyterians, this theology is where Doug Wilson stands out and it is one of the most critical IMHO in making Christianity Great Again.
I may completely wrong, but I would guess that a lot, if not most, Anglicans are Amillenial. Hey, as long as they're not Dispensationalist, we don't have to fight😂😂
Depending on what particular snippets from Paul's writings are taken, when they are divorced from the context of the foundation of the Torah, one can interpret them to mean a variety of things, and be led into error and even lawlessness (as the Apostle Peter warned, 2 Peter 3:15-17). This likely explains the plethora of denominations available to us. Our purpose and mission on this earth is to be as close to our Creator as we can be, through Yeshua's atoning sacrfice and through loving Him and our neighbor as ourselves. This can only be accomplished by knowing, guarding, and keeping His Commandments, regardless if our particular denomination does so or not.
Read "Mere Christianity" as a factual text. There are parts where CS Lewis says you can skip or not think about certain chapters. You must work through and understand those chapters thoroughly.
Dear Mr. Wilson: All of your well justified observations are referred to anglo-catholic practices that began in anglicanism only in the XIX century (and that are widely spread inside of the USA territory today), you are not at all referring to reformed confesional historical anglicanism, historical anglicanism does not believe in the monarchish episcopacy, apostolic succession (at least not in the sense you are referring to), neither believe in "higher" language in liturgy (which is actually critized in the 39 articles).
I am Blessed #1 to be in the body of Christ. #2 I am blessed to call myself an Anglican/High Church Episcopalian. Our service is so beautiful and gives true reverence to the King of Kings. Praise Jesus! Blessings!❤
You're "blessed" to call yourself an Anglican, Episcopalian. Here's an idea. Why don't you obey the scriptures and do what is says and call yourself a Christian? Do you think Christ cares for any denomination? He doesn't. He cares about every individual and their obedience to him. Acts says that followers of Christ were first called Christians in Antioch. Paul condemns such divisions as you are proud of, when he says one calls himself a follower of Apollos, one a follower of....... etc. Paul even said he's glad he hardly baptised anyone personally so no one's said he's a follower of Paul. If you are truly in Christ, then identify with that name-Christian. Not some man made denomination.
The non unity of Protestantism has turned me off of it, and i've been one all my life. Every body thinks they are right but they cant all be. Is the Holy spirit telling each one something different? This discourages me greatly.
He's talking about Direct Apostolic Sucession via holding to the Apostles teaching, not Historical Apostolic Succession via laying on of hands and holding to the Apostles teachings.
Historically, apostolic succession just meant the teaching of the apostles passed down. The idea you need a direct succession of bishops going back to the apostles isn't necessary so long as apostolic teaching doesn't change
The 1st Church began in the 1st century. The Anglican church began in the 16th century. Apostolic succession also began in the 1st century with the 12 apostles of Jesus Christ, not in the 4th century with the Roman Catholic in 318-325AD, nor in 1534AD with the Episcopal/Anglican church.
EmmanuelGoldstein74 The 1st and only Church was the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, there was no other Church, I can never understand why some Protestants bring up the 4th century.
@@misererenobis8900 The Roman Catholic Church is a creation of the late Roman Empire, and is quite disconnected from the Church started by the Apostles
@@YankeeNationalist You'll have to forgive me, I'm not an American or English Catholic, therefore this whole "Roman" thing is alien to us, we're just Catholic. As stated in my OP, there was only one Church comprising of various bishops presiding over their own patriarchate, e.g. Antioch, Jerusalem etc. Rome being another, where incidentally St. Peter, the first pope was martyred. And just to add, Rome was always seen as having primacy over the rest. Although Christianity was decriminalised in 313AD, it was already present in Rome since the first century.
@@YankeeNationalist The Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ in 33 AD and the Apostles were all Catholic and the first three heads of it(Peter,Linus,Clement) are all in the NT.It was also at the Council of Rome that the canon of scripture was set and it was Pope Siricius who first called it the "Bible"
Good news!!!!!!!!! Therefore repent and turn back, so that your sins may be wiped out, that seasons of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send Jesus, who has been appointed for you as the Messiah. Acts 3:19-20 CSB From then on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, because the kingdom of heaven has come near.” Matthew 4:17 CSB “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!” Mark 1:15 CSB Jesus replied, “Truly I tell you, unless someone is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Jesus answered, “Truly I tell you, unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. John 3:3, 5 CSB Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did. 1 John 2:6 NIV 1john.bible/1-john-2-6 Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6 CSB For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not die but have eternal life. John 3:16 GNB bible.com/bible/296/jhn.3.16.GNB _Jesus_ actually died, *_GOD_* has _His blood_ as a sacrifice for your sins. *_GOD_* killed *_His_*_ Only Son_ for you. All your sins: sexual immorality (fornication, adultery(lust), homosexual sex, pornography) murder( hating someone, envying, abortion and killing someone) , theft( murder, lying, abuse, corruption, disrespect, racism) and idolatry (greed, love of money, worship of other gods and pride) can be forgiven only if you believe in _Jesus_; that __*_God_* sacrificed _Him_ for the atonement of all your sins, and that_*He*_ raised _Him_ up 3 days later. And now He sits on the Right Hand of *_The Father_*__, ruling over all creation as __*_Lord and Saviour_* of the world. Jesus Christ died for your sins, and only through Him you can be forgiven of all your sins. You only go to heaven because of faith and belief in The death and resurrection of _The Son of _*_God_* for the sins of the world. Hell is for those reject GOD'S Only Son, they will be burnt by the wrath of The Almighty God. Believe that all your sins are forgiven because of The Blood of Jesus, who is The Messiah, The Saviour. Repent, turn away from your sins and live because, *_Jesus Lives_*
No, America fought a 'revolution' because they wanted the "same rights as Englishmen" because they were themselves English and deserved the the protections in the (original) Bill of Rights.
Anglicans and Presbyterians have much, much more in common with each other than either of them have with Baptists. We have been in a good Anglican Church for two years and we love the rich liturgy and worship. We are a more Puritan and reformed parish and have very little Anglo-catholic influence. So the ornateness isn’t there. We’re about to be confirmed into the church next week.
The Puratins decimated England in the 17th Century and burnt Bishop Loud a Church of England Bishop to death. They banned xmas for 5 years. after the death of Oliver Cromwell that they were banned from England neve to return.
The Prodestant church never really took off in the UK thats why the UK is Almost an Athiest country after Henry 8th desecrated churches 1,000 year old. He destroyed Christianity in England its been going down hill ever since.
@@joannechisholm4501 Your second comment is on point and this had occurred to me too - obviously Wilson has Reformed Anglicanism in view in this video. But your first is inaccurate and actually defamatory in that Laud was beheaded not burned. You need to think about another church that went in for mass immolations a century before. Puritans weren't banned from England after Cromwell, but were persecuted in various ways which later led to redress of grievance in the 1688 Bill of Rights which remains key to the English 'constitution' to this day. What do you mean by 'decimation'? James threatened to expel the Puritans ("or else do worse") and it takes two to tango. It was in his time that the first wave went to America and (contrary to your third post) had a lasting effect so that the USA was consistently more Christian than the UK by various yardsticks during the 20th century. As for the impact of Protestantism in England (lol if you really think it "never really took off" in Presbyterian Scotland!), it certainly caused far greater Bible knowledge among the people generally than had obtained in an era when many priests didn't know the Ten Commandments and so on. Granted, the printing press helped. The country was more not less Christian than in the Middle Ages. If you want to know what actually shifted the UK towards atheism, consider this quote: "I myself have little doubt that in England it was geology and the theory of evolution that changed us from a Christian to a pagan nation." Google it.
@@Shikuesi When Henry became head of the Church there was a riot in the North Of England and in other parts of the country. He wanted it his way are no way at all. He as a cruel and evil man just because he wanted a bit on the side that would be six after all that effort his line died out any way.
The remarks on Apostolic Succession - if possible such ordination should be accomplished. That a congregation can choose is own "clergy" is very acceptable.
“What I think the Bible teaches…” vs. what we know it teaches because we have Sacred Tradition going back to the time of the Apostles (which includes the canon of the NT, and the instruction of St. Paul to the Thessalonian church about not forsaking the tradition left to them by word or by letter. Despite all her flaws because of imperfect men, the dogmas, doctrines, and theology of the Church is infallible even though the pope himself is fallible. Why? Because it’s backed by Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. Every good Anglican eventually finds his/her way to God’s Catholic Church! You see this by how fast the numbers of members of Anglican Use Ordinariates are rising, and former Anglican clergy are now ordained as Catholic clergy. The founding pastor of the ACNA parish in my hometown (he was ordained in the Anglican Church of Canada, but left because of its heresy) is now a Roman Catholic, and an entire parish in my hometown is now Catholic with more Anglicans flocking in from around the city on a monthly basis. We see other Protestants joining the true church as well, so it’ll just be a matter of time until all truly devout Christians find their way back. Books and talks by Dr. Scott Hahn are great resources for Protestant Christians (especially Presbyterians as Scott was a former Presbyterian pastor). Books and resources from Marcus Grodi’s ministry, Coming Home, also are great resources. Marcus was also a former Presbyterian Pastor, he and Dr. Hahn founded the Coming Home Network.
We should not care about what tag we associate ourself with. We should just be the Called out Assembly of Jesus Christ our Lord. Because when you borrow down this rabbit trail, it creates a series of problems. These are many, such as you need to to be part of this ordained church to learn the truth. Our doctrine is the Bible & that's it. If you regally want to associate yourself with a tag. The only one that is biblical is Israel reformed Church. Because they simply follow the doctrines of the bible, not men.
when did you say"boo"? if you have a question then ask it. I have been harrassed about this video a lot in PM's , So what are you saying? What is your point? I would be happy to skype with you, or if you like message me like the others
Because modern Lutheranism denies the Doctrine of Grace and leans more Melanchthonism than what Martin Luthers teachings on soteriology. Lutherans believe that a child of God, can lose being a child of God, hence a once saved person can lose their salvation, denying one of the most important news of the Gospel, that he that begun the good work in you, WILL FINISH IT, not Might. Philippians 1:6 And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. It would be foolish to join a church that denies Phillipians 1:6
@Thereis Nopandemic Love your handle first off. I haven’t opened Luther’s small catechism in some time but please tell me where Lutherans believe you can lose your salvation.
I suspect Doug is not an Anglican or a Presbyterian or any other denomination for the same reason why other Americans don't like organised religion. He wants to church on his terms. The fact that his church subscribes to the creeds and confessions etc is simply arbitrary. He could have made up a doctrinal statement like most other independent churches.
He says he believes in "baptismal succession" instead of apostolic succession, but what about the keys of Heaven given to Peter to start the church? Those keys are not transmitted through baptism.
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach [to you] a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed! Galatians 1:8, or, Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law until all things have taken place. Matthew 5:18. It would seem that only Catholics have remained true to the law of the gospels. Just for the record; every split from Catholicism without exception was brought about in protest to either the sixth or ninth commandments.
@@mitchellcochran6919 Oh please don't. Low Church Anglican clergy wear such ghastly attire those surplices with the huge sleaves, those hideous preaching bands, and the bishops in those horrid (16th century) chimere's with puffed sleaves and the tippet....eeeeeek I could go on and on!!! Please chect out catholic liturgical dress........so much smarter and not something harking back to the 16th century.
I have listened to Doug Wilson a few times and I have never been very impressed by his intelligence. He doesn't express himself with due elegance- in fact, he almost stutters his way through these questions- ; he doesn't seem to recognize the complexity of the ideas under discussion: for Doug Wilson the Reformation IS Christianity and he reads the Bible through the lens of that tradition.
I don't think the point about "donning various articles of ecclesiastical clothing that are random" is very strong. It's okay for Anglicans to do it because they've been doing it longer? After all, it's pretty clear that Jesus and the Apostles never dressed like that. When you look at the history behind Catholic and Anglican ecclesiastical clothing items, it's no less silly for them to "play dress-up" as it is for some evangelical to do so.
Is the Anglican eucharist, beginning with that confession of sin and the necessary personal debasement, " not worthy to gather crumbs from under the masters' table", that is not the gospel. The Anglicans are smart people, but offer the parishioner, our Lord's justification by faith that it will not do. Nowhere in the NT does that confession appear. The lords supper, did Jesus ask the disciples to seek the Father's forgiveness prior to the bread and the wine,no. How about John 6, is there a sin confession first prior to partaking. Paul, chap 11, again no confession. What about the NC , Heb 10 vs 16- 18, notice the lack of any confession of sin prior to receiving the blessings. That eucharist is a church construct, and of course, God's remission of sin by installment every Sunday. It keeps the truth from the parishioners. The church order follows the request for forgiveness from God for his mercy sake without espousing that Jesus is the propitiation( mercy seat) set forth by God for us. The clergy rolled over making Henry the head of the church.This eucharist and doctrine reflects the poor choice made. Innocent well meaning people can live a whole life bound in this false gospel. Now at 76 I am teaching my older sister the language of her salvation.
The prayer of humble access is about confessing our inadequacy to receive the body and blood of Christ - no we don't have to say it in order to validate communion, but that's not why anglicans do it. We are warned not to eat and drink in an unworthy manner (1 Cor 11:27). I know that every Sunday I go to church needing to confess my sins, receive forgiveness and brought back into right relationship with God. The prayer of humble access is about recognising my failures and acknowledging Gods unfailing mercy through His Son. p.s. The line "I am not worthy to receive the crumbs under your table" is famously taken from the gospel where the woman says that even dogs get crumbs from the master's table and Jesus responds with "woman, your faith is great". That's why we follow that line with "but you are the same Lord whose nature is always to have mercy" because it reflects the mercy that Jesus showed to that woman! Its a beautiful prayer, you shouldn't make people feel bad for saying it before they partake in the most holy of sacraments!
" And their sins and iniquities I will remember no more" Where the remission of these is there is no more offering for sin"..Pity this will never be spoken of in an Anglican Euccharist. We should be celebrating our remission from sin, not asking for forgiveness which Jesus Christ our Lord has already provided. God bless you brother. " and we being dead to sin should live unto righteousness" 1Peter 2' 24.
Not Anglican... Because Henry VIII founded it and oniy Christ has the authority to found a church.. And don't say Christ worked through Henry VIII. Give me a break
Lol the same could be said of every church. Their isn't a denomination around today that we can't directly point out the general date of it's founding. And not one can rightly identify itself as "the" New Testament church, since the NT churches were local bodies of believers. One universal or Catholic church comprised of many bodies of believers.
I would like to see Doug Wilson in conversation with Rowan Williams. I am quite sure that Rowan Williams would be polite but I am not sure he would allow Wilson getting away with the nonsense he spouts about things he has very little knowledge about...
It's always something of a shock to learn how other see us, isn't it? It would be annoying, if they weren't so hilariously off the mark. I keep wanting to say, "Come on in! It looks so much different on the inside."
There were Presbyterians in the 9th century!? Are you feeling ok? There were NO protestants until 1500! Not even Augustin was anything like a Protestant.
The Holy Spirit is not an elevator that comes down when we push a button. Any number of people can (and have) claimed the Holy Spirit comes to them and activates their reality. This is weak tea and not defensible historically or actually. Roman Catholicism is the Truth, or there is no God. Period.
German? None of them are German beers. The Calvinus is Swiss, the Old Rasputin is a North Coast Brewery beer (California), and the Black Douglas was brewed in Scotland.
I guess Doug that anyone that hasn't devoted his entire life in studying bible passages cannot sit at your table and debate any issue.Your conclusions have no more validations than a 10 year old with a first look at a bible.. You present with an educated premise but your responses are no more valid than that 10 year olds..Yours is cloaked in a mire of big words and double talk.. Its like what do you prefer ? Coke or Pepsi? Both are bad for you but both taste ok.. They wont harm you in moderation.. Your version is harmful Doug.. you are the Dr Pepper in that argument..
I am a non-reformed Anglican, and I love Doug Wilson. Just because I may disagree with him on a few things doesn’t mean that I can’t think he is such an awesome man. Who wouldn’t love him, and recognize his love for the body of Christ?
@@bv6up According to whom?
After faithful attendance for 40+ years in several very fine, conservative Presbyterian churches, we are now new Anglicans and flourishing. We use the 1928 version of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer and love it! We cherish Christ as our King in both theory and practice in every service. Our priest's expressed role is to draw back the curtains to reveal Jesus Christ and then hide in the folds. Soli Deo Gloria.
the 1928 book of common prayer is so beautiful, i feel sorry for my protestant brothers who have never experienced it!! They would all become anglican if they did.
And I find, in addition to Sunday Eucharistic worship, that the Daily Office in the BCP is powerful, grounding, and so good in disciple making.
You only lack one thing: to leave that imitation of a church whose appearances attract you so much, made by a proud, rebellious and lustful king, and join the true Church of Christ under the pastoral care and authority of the Apostle Peter ('Kefa' = rock in Aramaic) Mt 16:18-20: the Catholic one.
@@nonfecittaliter4361 lol.... oh, you're serious.
@@englishmansjournal2071 If you actually think laughing at him shows him as being a joke, imagine being stuck to a branch of Christianity founded because a thirsty king wanted a divorce.
Unless one lives in a city, the choices of where to plant your faith are limited. That is if they're going to be fully involved in the life of the church. So many of us are "stuck" in churches that leave us wanting for more and then searching for ways to fill that void outside the church they attend.
As a practicing Anglican who has close family tied to presbyterianism I did not find anything problematic about Doug Wilson's comments - it's a fairly bland but factual explanation of his personal liturgical preferences. Where he refers to 'Elevated' and 'Baroque' I would say we have a great emphasis on liturgy and Christian spirituality, connecting with the traditions of the desert fathers. Many (including many in the church) don't understand that the Anglican church is very much a protestant church and its history has been very much about bridging protestant theology with a continuing apostolic christian tradition - remember Cranmer, who wrote the first book of common prayer (1549) was burnt as a martyred under Mary's rule. One of the great misunderstandings was that the CofE was only about Henry VIII getting a divorce. In fact, Henry was a passionate explorer of faith and came to conclusion that the roman church hierarchy had become a barrier to this. As someone who spent several decades in a Anglo-catholic parish, I would also acknowledge that tractarians brought needed reform and balance to the C of E. Their movement brought not just a revival of liturgical practice but also motivated them to do good work among the poor of England. What I think Presbyterianism brings is a great interest in studying the bible and experiencing Christ on a personal level through prayer. So as Doug says, it is very much a matter of personal choice and how each resonates with you.
Appreciate the fairmindedness. However, that's the most optimistic description of Henry VIII's religious character I've ever read. Sources?
Canon Press Dr Ryan Reeves addresses this in his history of Anglicanism.
Duncan Unwin. Hi, fellow Anglican. I appreciate your comments. However, I think it can lead to misunderstanding to say that the Anglican church "is very much a protestant church". People can read into that that it is Lutheran, or Calvinist or Zwinglian, and many within the church have tried to make it so. However, I think the self understanding of the English reformers, and of the so called "High" and Anglo-Catholic theologians, is that it was about the English branch of the Catholic Church reforming itself and correcting some late mediaeval abuses and errors. It was not the Tractarians who introduced the Catholic understanding, it was there all along. Apostolic succession, baptismal regeneration, real presence of the Lord's Body and Blood in the Eucharist as a reality effected in a heavenly way by the divine Christ, and not something to be defined in terms of physical science as a merely material thing. That has always been there in the doctrine and in the Book of Common Prayer. It is a very common misapprehension of even many Anglicans that you can force ideas of European Protestantism onto Anglicanism. Certainly, there were turbulent times of Protestant excesses, with temporary suppression of things which legitimately belonged to true Christianity, and happily the 19th to early 20th centuries saw restoration of such things. On the doctrinal issues, an interesting work is "An Explanation of the Thirty Nine Articles" by Bishop Alexander Penrose Forbes (1871) The work was dedicated to E B Pusey, and is a comprehensive treatment of the Articles from a Catholic perspective. Forbes faced some resistance to his teaching of the Real Presence, but was vindicated. Other great 19th c. witnesses to the Catholic faith were Henry Parry Liddon, and also the non-Tractarian John William Burgon. They resisted the departures from orthodoxy which were arising in their day, and which sadly corrupted the church. including the Anglo-Catholic side of it. Such great champions of Scriptural and Catholic orthodoxy seem to be deliberately sidelined by the modernists who hold sway in the church.
@anselman Thank you for your considered comment. I have great sympathy for many of the position put forward by the Anglo-catholic revival which your have so well summarised. But while I feel drawn to this liturgical and spiritual approach, to see Anglicanism as a continuing spirituality stretching back to the desert fathers, the historical accuracy of this assertion is dubious. We need to only look at the founders of the new Church of England to see that they were truly protestants, dedicated to the removal of Roman influence. It takes a great leap to find Thomas Cranmer to be anything but the revolutionary, although one whose biblical and liturgical scholarship was such that he was able to preserve much of liturgical practices while jettisoning non-biblical-based theology. While not Lutheran I think it is very fair to compare and contrast the changes in England with those that had occurred and were occurring in Germany.
@@CanonPress The Anglican predates Henry the eighth
The thing about the Church is, that it is a monarchy, God is the king and he delegates his authority to the Church, and he appoints those who are to be the shepherds("leaders") over His flock(His people here on earth).
You know the joke. Can you be saved outside the Anglican Communion? Of course, but no lady or gentleman would do it.
The Anglican Church has a history of colonialism and an association with colonial crimes
It's a good thing I ain't no lady. 🧔
@@antonralph6947 That history of colonialism includes spreading the Gospel and instituting great change in wicked and ungodly, pagan cultures.
@@gch8810 the word you're looking for is genocide, buddy
“You don’t have to be Presbyterian to go to heaven, but I wouldn’t take any chances.”
That's one of the most un-Christian things I've ever heard.
@@CIMAmotorcry
@@twicegod9160 Would you like me to? Also, not very Christian.
@@CIMAmotor don’t care cry more
@@twicegod9160 I'm not crying, you're crying.
Fun fact Anglicans were the first to make the make the Bible available for common people or lay people as we call them legal and mass produced thanks to the Gutenberg Press. The other translations were not legal at the time. The vulgate claimed to be the first common language Bible but it was still inaccessible.
@VDMA Yes but it wasn't legal or sanctioned at the time.
Gutenberg printed the first Bibles in 1455 and he was no Protestant.
@@Kitiwake His Bible was still in Latin though. Not in the common tongue.
The Autistic Comedian - The preferred Bible during the reformation was the Geneva and it was the first complete bible printed in English. Same bible brought over in the mayflower and used by the Puritans.
The Gutenberg Bib was Catholic as he was a devout Catholic and decades before Protestatntism or Anglicanism even existed.Not to mention the Catholic Church ahs always had the Bible in various languages for almost 2,000 years.Koine Greek,Aramaic,Coptic,Ge'ez,Armenian,Chaldean,Syriac.Latin was simply used by the Roman Rite in the West
Well, perhaps if I lived during the English Civil War or in an area without an Anglican church, I'd be a Puritan instead of an Anglican -- I indeed love many Puritan theologians. Greetings from an Anglo-Reformed, commonly known as a 'Calvinist with a prayer book'!
I'm a Protestant, Evangelical, and Reformed Anglican. I fully affirm and believe the 39 Articles validate true Biblical expressions. And of course they were of course influenced by continental reformers like Calvin (who by the confirmed a "real presence," not on the table as Christ ascended to heaven, but by faith in one's heart through the sacraments). The Puritans on the other hand were very much more influenced by Zwingli in regards to sacraments, were against an episcopate church polity (so was Calvin on that matter) as they were the pre-cursors to the Presbyterian Church. They were also against wearing pagan wedding rings and were often very pharisaical in what they considered acceptable worship practices. The 1662 BCP is more reformed than any modern version; (all modern ones like the 1928, 1978, or even the ACNA 2019 have some Oxford Movement influences in them).
@@Psalm144.1 I believe the 2019 ACNA BCP is actually rooted in the 1662 BCP.
@@wesmorgan7729 I respectfully disagree. The 2019 is kind of rooted in the 1662, but not namely where I think it matters most, protestant theology. It's mostly rooted in the 1979 and the 1928. I use the 1662 for personal devotions and think I'm familiar with many differences. Views similar to mine are echoed by thousands of evangelicals, though we are currently the minority in "Anglicanism." Examples: 1. The 2019 BCP is very eclectic; creates divisions. 2. Too many prayers for the dead. 3. Lots of additional rites (Pastoral Rites) with anointing oils and a very obvious ceremony for auricular confession (p. 122-123). Very much shows a Romanist influence (nothing like the 1662 which dropped a lot of rites, see "Concerning Ceremonies, why some be abolished and some retained"). 4. The Eucharist liturgy follows the 1928/1979 instead of the clear Protestant theology of the 1662 (even if you use the ACNA's option to rearrange the liturgy like the 1662, still doesn't matter). Cranmer specifically ensured in the 1552 that there would be no language like "we offer you these gifts" and praying the Holy Spirit over the bread and wine. In the 1662, any hints of offerings, praise, ect. were all clearly removed or relocated from the Lord's Supper liturgy to ensure it was very clear to parishioners where the CofE stood. The ACNA's follows the 1928/1979 regarding this matter.
@@Psalm144.1 Thanks for these insights. I recently became Anglican, so I'm not too familiar with the specifics of what each BCP has. I definitely lean more Protestant theologically so I'm probably similar to you in that regard. I've read that the 1928 BCP draws from the 1662 version, but just modernizes (modernizes for that time) the language, but perhaps that's not entirely accurate. After looking into the background of the 2019 ACNA BCP, it does seem to derive its contents from the 1928 BCP moreso than the 1662 one. I definitely wouldn't say, though, that it derives from the 1979 version since it was created as a orthodox alternative to the liberal BCP created in '79. What church is yours affiliated with?
@@wesmorgan7729 The 28' was the first revision of the 1662; it was influenced by the Oxford / Ritualism Movement. First step in the wrong direction. The 28' is traditional language like the 1662. Both are easy to read. ACNA's "Renewed Ancient Text" (p.123) is similar to the 79' Rite 2. Noticeable but not critical; ACNA's slightly toned down the gravity of sin (Morning/Evening) prayer of confession, (1662, "have mercy upon us miserable offenders..."). This article published by the evangelical Church Society; sheds better light than me. Just replace the CofE "Alternative Services Book" and "Common Worship" with the ACNA's when reading. churchsociety.org/docs/churchman/112/Cman_112_2_Phillips.pdf
I think using the desert island scenario is useful for what it is, but it should not be used to establish a norm or lack thereof. Yes, the situation of a desert island is exactly why mainstream Reformed divines thought the Continental churches without monarchical bishops could be excused for lacking bishops; yet they held that historic episcopacy, and the threefold ministry of bishop, priest, and deacon, was what the Holy Spirit himself had shaped early on in the Church as the basic shape of regular polity in the postapostolic generations of the Church.
I find it interesting that a) He has a JC Ryle (Anglican) book on preaching behind the interviewer and b) His description of Anglican government as monarchical overlooks the historic episcopate as rooted in the diaconate (servanthood). Every archbishop was a priest who was a deacon. And he remains a servant. So the government and authority is both representative and hierarchical (see Acts) in the spirit of servanthood, not pure government. And in that, broader than he lets on or is aware of.
its a 7-minute video
Dang this comment thread is salty. I've attended Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, CoC, Methodist, Brethren and all kinds of non denom/independent churches. I dont understand how y'all can be so jumpy about how others prefer to worship, especially on secondary issues.
The thing that I haven't found in any Anglican congregations and I would be happy to be proven otherwise is good sound teaching on postmillennialism, and the optimist viewpoint of God's current dominion, reign, and kingdom. All the anglican's I've met are amillennialist and are pessimists with regard to God's reign. Although I'm not sure it is true of most Presbyterians, this theology is where Doug Wilson stands out and it is one of the most critical IMHO in making Christianity Great Again.
I may completely wrong, but I would guess that a lot, if not most, Anglicans are Amillenial. Hey, as long as they're not Dispensationalist, we don't have to fight😂😂
Is there a video on the theological differences between an anglican and the rest of other major protestant stream?
So how do we address the liturgical starvation?
Depending on what particular snippets from Paul's writings are taken, when they are divorced from the context of the foundation of the Torah, one can interpret them to mean a variety of things, and be led into error and even lawlessness (as the Apostle Peter warned, 2 Peter 3:15-17). This likely explains the plethora of denominations available to us. Our purpose and mission on this earth is to be as close to our Creator as we can be, through Yeshua's atoning sacrfice and through loving Him and our neighbor as ourselves. This can only be accomplished by knowing, guarding, and keeping His Commandments, regardless if our particular denomination does so or not.
Read "Mere Christianity" as a factual text. There are parts where CS Lewis says you can skip or not think about certain chapters. You must work through and understand those chapters thoroughly.
Greetings from a fellow Anglo-Catholic from the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter under Anglicanorum coetibus :)
Dear Mr. Wilson: All of your well justified observations are referred to anglo-catholic practices that began in anglicanism only in the XIX century (and that are widely spread inside of the USA territory today), you are not at all referring to reformed confesional historical anglicanism, historical anglicanism does not believe in the monarchish episcopacy, apostolic succession (at least not in the sense you are referring to), neither believe in "higher" language in liturgy (which is actually critized in the 39 articles).
It saddens me to see modern non doms lack of appreciation for the value of the historic liturgy.
I am Blessed #1 to be in the body of Christ. #2 I am blessed to call myself an Anglican/High Church Episcopalian. Our service is so beautiful and gives true reverence to the King of Kings. Praise Jesus! Blessings!❤
You're "blessed" to call yourself an Anglican, Episcopalian. Here's an idea. Why don't you obey the scriptures and do what is says and call yourself a Christian? Do you think Christ cares for any denomination? He doesn't. He cares about every individual and their obedience to him.
Acts says that followers of Christ were first called Christians in Antioch. Paul condemns such divisions as you are proud of, when he says one calls himself a follower of Apollos, one a follower of....... etc. Paul even said he's glad he hardly baptised anyone personally so no one's said he's a follower of Paul.
If you are truly in Christ, then identify with that name-Christian. Not some man made denomination.
There are PCA churches that act more like Anglicans, and “Prayer Book Presbyterians” in something like the ACNA. It’s an interesting landscape.
The non unity of Protestantism has turned me off of it, and i've been one all my life. Every body thinks they are right but they cant all be. Is the Holy spirit telling each one something different? This discourages me greatly.
He's talking about Direct Apostolic Sucession via holding to the Apostles teaching, not Historical Apostolic Succession via laying on of hands and holding to the Apostles teachings.
Historically, apostolic succession just meant the teaching of the apostles passed down.
The idea you need a direct succession of bishops going back to the apostles isn't necessary so long as apostolic teaching doesn't change
The 1st Church began in the 1st century. The Anglican church began in the 16th century. Apostolic succession also began in the 1st century with the 12 apostles of Jesus Christ, not in the 4th century with the Roman Catholic in 318-325AD, nor in 1534AD with the Episcopal/Anglican church.
Toxophilite the Catholic Church is that Church of the 1st century.
EmmanuelGoldstein74 The 1st and only Church was the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, there was no other Church, I can never understand why some Protestants bring up the 4th century.
@@misererenobis8900 The Roman Catholic Church is a creation of the late Roman Empire, and is quite disconnected from the Church started by the Apostles
@@YankeeNationalist You'll have to forgive me, I'm not an American or English Catholic, therefore this whole "Roman" thing is alien to us, we're just Catholic. As stated in my OP, there was only one Church comprising of various bishops presiding over their own patriarchate, e.g. Antioch, Jerusalem etc. Rome being another, where incidentally St. Peter, the first pope was martyred. And just to add, Rome was always seen as having primacy over the rest. Although Christianity was decriminalised in 313AD, it was already present in Rome since the first century.
@@YankeeNationalist The Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ in 33 AD and the Apostles were all Catholic and the first three heads of it(Peter,Linus,Clement) are all in the NT.It was also at the Council of Rome that the canon of scripture was set and it was Pope Siricius who first called it the "Bible"
What a train wreck of comments. I wasn't expecting the Spanish inquisition....
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! :-)
Good news!!!!!!!!!
Therefore repent and turn back, so that your sins may be wiped out, that seasons of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send Jesus, who has been appointed for you as the Messiah.
Acts 3:19-20 CSB
From then on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, because the kingdom of heaven has come near.”
Matthew 4:17 CSB
“The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”
Mark 1:15 CSB
Jesus replied, “Truly I tell you, unless someone is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Jesus answered, “Truly I tell you, unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
John 3:3, 5 CSB
Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.
1 John 2:6 NIV
1john.bible/1-john-2-6
Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
John 14:6 CSB
For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not die but have eternal life.
John 3:16 GNB
bible.com/bible/296/jhn.3.16.GNB
_Jesus_ actually died, *_GOD_* has _His blood_ as a sacrifice for your sins. *_GOD_* killed *_His_*_ Only Son_ for you. All your sins: sexual immorality (fornication, adultery(lust), homosexual sex, pornography) murder( hating someone, envying, abortion and killing someone) , theft( murder, lying, abuse, corruption, disrespect, racism) and idolatry (greed, love of money, worship of other gods and pride) can be forgiven only if you believe in _Jesus_; that __*_God_* sacrificed _Him_ for the atonement of all your sins, and that_*He*_ raised _Him_ up 3 days later. And now He sits on the Right Hand of *_The Father_*__, ruling over all creation as __*_Lord and Saviour_* of the world.
Jesus Christ died for your sins, and only through Him you can be forgiven of all your sins.
You only go to heaven because of faith and belief in The death and resurrection of _The Son of _*_God_* for the sins of the world.
Hell is for those reject GOD'S Only Son, they will be burnt by the wrath of The Almighty God.
Believe that all your sins are forgiven because of The Blood of Jesus, who is The Messiah, The Saviour.
Repent, turn away from your sins and live because,
*_Jesus Lives_*
If it ain't Baroque, don't fix it. < rimshot >
A small correction. The right term for the type of polity with Bishops are episcopal
That's why in America we fought the Revolution.
No, America fought a 'revolution' because they wanted the "same rights as Englishmen" because they were themselves English and deserved the the protections in the (original) Bill of Rights.
So now that there is an adulterer as Supreme Governor of the CofE, according to Scripture, what is gafcon going to do about this?
Anglicans and Presbyterians have much, much more in common with each other than either of them have with Baptists. We have been in a good Anglican Church for two years and we love the rich liturgy and worship. We are a more Puritan and reformed parish and have very little Anglo-catholic influence. So the ornateness isn’t there. We’re about to be confirmed into the church next week.
The Puratins decimated England in the 17th Century and burnt Bishop Loud a Church of England Bishop to death. They banned xmas for 5 years. after the death of Oliver Cromwell that they were banned from England neve to return.
The Anglican church is a broad church you are at the low end of the church, Depends on what end what end of the scale of Anglaism you on.
The Prodestant church never really took off in the UK thats why the UK is Almost an Athiest country after Henry 8th desecrated churches 1,000 year old. He destroyed Christianity in England its been going down hill ever since.
@@joannechisholm4501 Your second comment is on point and this had occurred to me too - obviously Wilson has Reformed Anglicanism in view in this video. But your first is inaccurate and actually defamatory in that Laud was beheaded not burned. You need to think about another church that went in for mass immolations a century before. Puritans weren't banned from England after Cromwell, but were persecuted in various ways which later led to redress of grievance in the 1688 Bill of Rights which remains key to the English 'constitution' to this day. What do you mean by 'decimation'? James threatened to expel the Puritans ("or else do worse") and it takes two to tango. It was in his time that the first wave went to America and (contrary to your third post) had a lasting effect so that the USA was consistently more Christian than the UK by various yardsticks during the 20th century. As for the impact of Protestantism in England (lol if you really think it "never really took off" in Presbyterian Scotland!), it certainly caused far greater Bible knowledge among the people generally than had obtained in an era when many priests didn't know the Ten Commandments and so on. Granted, the printing press helped. The country was more not less Christian than in the Middle Ages. If you want to know what actually shifted the UK towards atheism, consider this quote: "I myself have little doubt that in England it was geology and the theory of evolution that changed us from a Christian to a pagan nation." Google it.
@@Shikuesi When Henry became head of the Church there was a riot in the North Of England and in other parts of the country. He wanted it his way are no way at all. He as a cruel and evil man just because he wanted a bit on the side that would be six after all that effort his line died out any way.
How is anyone uncomfortable with order?
Certainly not Presbyterians. They have a quite specific structure and order.
The remarks on Apostolic Succession - if possible such ordination should be accomplished. That a congregation can choose is own "clergy" is very acceptable.
“What I think the Bible teaches…” vs. what we know it teaches because we have Sacred Tradition going back to the time of the Apostles (which includes the canon of the NT, and the instruction of St. Paul to the Thessalonian church about not forsaking the tradition left to them by word or by letter. Despite all her flaws because of imperfect men, the dogmas, doctrines, and theology of the Church is infallible even though the pope himself is fallible. Why? Because it’s backed by Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.
Every good Anglican eventually finds his/her way to God’s Catholic Church! You see this by how fast the numbers of members of Anglican Use Ordinariates are rising, and former Anglican clergy are now ordained as Catholic clergy. The founding pastor of the ACNA parish in my hometown (he was ordained in the Anglican Church of Canada, but left because of its heresy) is now a Roman Catholic, and an entire parish in my hometown is now Catholic with more Anglicans flocking in from around the city on a monthly basis. We see other Protestants joining the true church as well, so it’ll just be a matter of time until all truly devout Christians find their way back. Books and talks by Dr. Scott Hahn are great resources for Protestant Christians (especially Presbyterians as Scott was a former Presbyterian pastor). Books and resources from Marcus Grodi’s ministry, Coming Home, also are great resources. Marcus was also a former Presbyterian Pastor, he and Dr. Hahn founded the Coming Home Network.
So you're saying there is some good stuff in the Anglican church, but that could be true in other churches like Baptist, Presbyterian, etc.
Thanks. So helpful.
We should not care about what tag we associate ourself with. We should just be the Called out Assembly of Jesus Christ our Lord. Because when you borrow down this rabbit trail, it creates a series of problems. These are many, such as you need to to be part of this ordained church to learn the truth. Our doctrine is the Bible & that's it. If you regally want to associate yourself with a tag. The only one that is biblical is Israel reformed Church. Because they simply follow the doctrines of the bible, not men.
What's that in the Bible?
when did you say"boo"? if you have a question then ask it. I have been harrassed about this video a lot in PM's , So what are you saying? What is your point? I would be happy to skype with you, or if you like message me like the others
I'm just a simple follower of Christ.. but where to go to church has me so confused :(
Saved One
What city do you live in?
Go to an Orthodox Church.
Moses King Go worship Mary and leave bro 😂
Find an Orthodox Church
BY WHAT STANDARD?!!?
i would say why arent you lutheran doug wilson?
Because modern Lutheranism denies the Doctrine of Grace and leans more Melanchthonism than what Martin Luthers teachings on soteriology. Lutherans believe that a child of God, can lose being a child of God, hence a once saved person can lose their salvation, denying one of the most important news of the Gospel, that he that begun the good work in you, WILL FINISH IT, not Might.
Philippians 1:6
And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.
It would be foolish to join a church that denies Phillipians 1:6
@Thereis Nopandemic Love your handle first off. I haven’t opened Luther’s small catechism in some time but please tell me where Lutherans believe you can lose your salvation.
@@stankwilliamsjr.8949 I used to work for a retired Lutheran minister. He was quite emphatic on that point.
The Puritans had a problem with overly ornate worship.
I suspect Doug is not an Anglican or a Presbyterian or any other denomination for the same reason why other Americans don't like organised religion. He wants to church on his terms. The fact that his church subscribes to the creeds and confessions etc is simply arbitrary. He could have made up a doctrinal statement like most other independent churches.
Ummm.....he's a Confessional Presbyterian.
He says he believes in "baptismal succession" instead of apostolic succession, but what about the keys of Heaven given to Peter to start the church? Those keys are not transmitted through baptism.
Apostolic succession is handed down through confirmation by the bishop to the new bishop
Jesus in John uses that same language for all the Apostles
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach [to you] a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed! Galatians 1:8, or, Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law until all things have taken place. Matthew 5:18. It would seem that only Catholics have remained true to the law of the gospels. Just for the record; every split from Catholicism without exception was brought about in protest to either the sixth or ninth commandments.
We are not under any covenant theology today.
Because he’d have submit to a bishop.
Lol bingo
I'm sold
On what were you "sold?"
Don’t the majority of other Protestants play dress up too?(ie suit and tie?), not really much of a difference.
Imma go to my next job interview in Anglican vestaments
@@mitchellcochran6919 Bro, this has me laughing so hard
@@mitchellcochran6919 thats not the point, the point is both dress in formal wear for the purpose of the gathering congregation.
@@mitchellcochran6919 Oh please don't. Low Church Anglican clergy wear such ghastly attire those surplices with the huge sleaves, those hideous preaching bands, and the bishops in those horrid (16th century) chimere's with puffed sleaves and the tippet....eeeeeek I could go on and on!!! Please chect out catholic liturgical dress........so much smarter and not something harking back to the 16th century.
@@colinlavelle7806 lol
He's saying he's a Christian frontrunner
I have listened to Doug Wilson a few times and I have never been very impressed by his intelligence. He doesn't express himself with due elegance- in fact, he almost stutters his way through these questions- ; he doesn't seem to recognize the complexity of the ideas under discussion: for Doug Wilson the Reformation IS Christianity and he reads the Bible through the lens of that tradition.
Are those empty beer bottles on the shelf? Just wondering that’s all.
Where is it "pretty clear that Jesus and the Apostles never dressed like that"?
In the first 5 books of the bible which describes the way that Israelites were to dress.
I don't think the point about "donning various articles of ecclesiastical clothing that are random" is very strong. It's okay for Anglicans to do it because they've been doing it longer? After all, it's pretty clear that Jesus and the Apostles never dressed like that. When you look at the history behind Catholic and Anglican ecclesiastical clothing items, it's no less silly for them to "play dress-up" as it is for some evangelical to do so.
Is the Anglican eucharist, beginning with that confession of sin and the necessary personal debasement, " not worthy to gather crumbs from under the masters' table", that is not the gospel. The Anglicans are smart people, but offer the parishioner, our Lord's justification by faith that it will not do. Nowhere in the NT does that confession appear. The lords supper, did Jesus ask the disciples to seek the Father's forgiveness prior to the bread and the wine,no. How about John 6, is there a sin confession first prior to partaking. Paul, chap 11, again no confession. What about the NC , Heb 10 vs 16- 18, notice the lack of any confession of sin prior to receiving the blessings.
That eucharist is a church construct, and of course, God's remission of sin by installment every Sunday. It keeps the truth from the parishioners. The church order follows the request for forgiveness from God for his mercy sake without espousing that Jesus is the propitiation( mercy seat) set forth by God for us. The clergy rolled over making Henry the head of the church.This eucharist and doctrine reflects the poor choice made. Innocent well meaning people can live a whole life bound in this false gospel. Now at 76 I am teaching my older sister the language of her salvation.
The prayer of humble access is about confessing our inadequacy to receive the body and blood of Christ - no we don't have to say it in order to validate communion, but that's not why anglicans do it. We are warned not to eat and drink in an unworthy manner (1 Cor 11:27). I know that every Sunday I go to church needing to confess my sins, receive forgiveness and brought back into right relationship with God. The prayer of humble access is about recognising my failures and acknowledging Gods unfailing mercy through His Son. p.s. The line "I am not worthy to receive the crumbs under your table" is famously taken from the gospel where the woman says that even dogs get crumbs from the master's table and Jesus responds with "woman, your faith is great". That's why we follow that line with "but you are the same Lord whose nature is always to have mercy" because it reflects the mercy that Jesus showed to that woman! Its a beautiful prayer, you shouldn't make people feel bad for saying it before they partake in the most holy of sacraments!
" And their sins and iniquities I will remember no more" Where the remission of these is there is no more offering for sin"..Pity this will never be spoken of in an Anglican Euccharist. We should be celebrating our remission from sin, not asking for forgiveness which Jesus Christ our Lord has already provided. God bless you brother. " and we being dead to sin should live unto righteousness" 1Peter 2' 24.
the invite was not meant for you
The anglicans don't have apostolic succession.
And there's no such thing as baptismal succession😳
exactly
Yes they do have Apostolic Succession
@benboulet they do not have apostolic succession
Why aren’t you apostolic?
I'm a Presbyterian who prays the Anglican rosary 😂😂
same, yet I get accused of being Roman Catholic
@@tjs.5044 Same!😂🤣
Lots of words to say "I just don't like it". No Biblical or Church History arguments to back his opinions or assertions.
come to eastern orthodoxy
Not Anglican... Because Henry VIII founded it and oniy Christ has the authority to found a church.. And don't say Christ worked through Henry VIII.
Give me a break
Lol the same could be said of every church. Their isn't a denomination around today that we can't directly point out the general date of it's founding. And not one can rightly identify itself as "the" New Testament church, since the NT churches were local bodies of believers. One universal or Catholic church comprised of many bodies of believers.
@@Michael_Chandler_Keaton
Yes there is, the Eastern Orthodox Church founded at Pentecost and the only church that has Apostolic succession.
Henry VIII didn't actually found the CofE. The Anglican Church was a creation of the English State under Edward VI and Elizabeth I.
@@colinlavelle7806 Not quite. The Anglican Church existed and thrived centuries before all the Tudors.
I would like to see Doug Wilson in conversation with Rowan Williams. I am quite sure that Rowan Williams would be polite but I am not sure he would allow Wilson getting away with the nonsense he spouts about things he has very little knowledge about...
It's always something of a shock to learn how other see us, isn't it? It would be annoying, if they weren't so hilariously off the mark. I keep wanting to say, "Come on in! It looks so much different on the inside."
Baptists know their own heritage. What a blockhead to say they don't.
Chet the Bee ... As a baptist, I would say most don't. It's not emphasized.
Its a dogma eat dogma world out there. 😆
There were Presbyterians in the 9th century!? Are you feeling ok? There were NO protestants until 1500! Not even Augustin was anything like a Protestant.
exactly.the oldest Protestant sect is Lutheranism from 1517.
People seemed to forget that the Baptist is the only true denomation and the only one found in the bible .... John the Baptist .... 🤣
OMG do you really think the Baptist Church was founded by John the Baptist.... you must be an American lol!!!
@@colinlavelle7806 you must be really dumb if you can't get sarcasm
I'm Reformed buy everytime I listen to Doug im like "what the f is he talking about?"
Presbyterian is much like Reformed. He seems confused on answering the questions.
For a reformed person, one wonders towards the f-bomb f - you may wish to reform this?
Xander Duffy yes. Lord Jesus help me
The Holy Spirit is not an elevator that comes down when we push a button. Any number of people can (and have) claimed the Holy Spirit comes to them and activates their reality. This is weak tea and not defensible historically or actually. Roman Catholicism is the Truth, or there is no God. Period.
holy non-sequitur, batman
Fine, I’ll become an atheist then. That’s settled.
Pachamama's calling
It is called CAtholic,not Roman Catholic.NOT all Catholicsd are from the Roman Rite. I happen to be a Byzantine Catholic
Anglicanism in the One True Faith. Everything else is error and heresy.
Strategically placed German beer bottles, lol. What a poser.
+jklseattle Posing as what?
German? None of them are German beers. The Calvinus is Swiss, the Old Rasputin is a North Coast Brewery beer (California), and the Black Douglas was brewed in Scotland.
Posing as a former legalistic Baptist, the beer bottles make an important statement.
@@greatsea I knew I recognized the Black Douglas, but could not name it.
I guess Doug that anyone that hasn't devoted his entire life in studying bible passages cannot sit at your table and debate any issue.Your conclusions have no more validations than a 10 year old with a first look at a bible.. You present with an educated premise but your responses are no more valid than that 10 year olds..Yours is cloaked in a mire of big words and double talk.. Its like what do you prefer ? Coke or Pepsi? Both are bad for you but both taste ok.. They wont harm you in moderation.. Your version is harmful Doug.. you are the Dr Pepper in that argument..
Did he drink all those beers before he gave his answer ? Didn’t he even answer the question.
He is so hard to take. So insufferably smug.
I'd suggest he's simply strong in his convictions, which more Christians might be if they took more time to study God's Word.
@@ElSiv84 He IS smug though. And probably a racist.
“Liturgically starved”
Indeed.