Hey brother. Congratulations on making the switch. May God bless you in it. I am a newcomer to the ACNA myself and seeking ordination so hearing your thoughts and experiences are very valuable. I look forward to following your journey!
Thank you for taking the time to describe your insights into church polity. I appreciate that great, Wesleyan catholic spirit, your generous spirit when making your argument.
Welcome, Daniel, to the Anglican/English branch of the Catholic faith. Thank you for mentioning Jonah ! His channel is great. Gavin does good work too although I don't understand why Gavin is still a Baptist ! I'm an English Catholic (Anglo) Franciscan Deacon in the Continuum. I appreciate your videos !
Yes, I really love Jonah's channel. Anglican Aesthetics is really good too. Gavin's brother (Dane) is, I believe, a Presbyterian minister, and his father (Ray) is an Anglican priest in my diocese. From his channel I gather that Gavin is simply convinced of Credo-baptism. Must be some interesting holiday discussions. Given his other commitments, though, it would not shock me one day to hear that Gavin moved into a more historic/sacramental communion. We will see.
@@danielhixon8209 Deacon Daniel, I had not heard of Anglican Aesthetics. I will check it out. I admire Gavin's scholarship and his research into the Early Church. I think he is a super smart guy; yet his credo-baptism puzzles me. Infant Baptism has been the practice of the Early Church from as far back as we have records. Gavin might say that infant baptism is not mentioned in the Bible or Early Church until the 2-3 century; but the fact that there is no opposition to infant baptism in the writings of the Early Church other than the heretical view of "one should postpone baptism until just before death" so that all of their post conversion sins could be washed away. If infant baptism was an innovation and not a part of Apostolic practice there would have been a recorded fight over the issue.. Anyway. Thank you for a your channel !
@@roddumlauf9241 I completely agree; in my video on why we baptize babies I make exactly that point: introducing infant baptism as an innovation and departure from the Apostolic practice would be a big change. If that happened somebody somewhere would have objected; there would have been a dispute. We have evidence of many disputes in those early years - and yet not even a hint that this was ever a topic of debate. Add to that how the OT analogues of baptism (circumcision and passing through the Red sea) both included children and babies, and how it is the universal practice across the ages, I think the weight of evidence clearly favors the classical position as the Apostolic teaching.
I think the traditional Wesleyan/Lutheran approach is healthy ecumenically (as opposed to say Congregationalist or Presbyterian approaches) -- it is one thing to highly value the three-fold ministry but for various historical contingencies defend the validity of presbyteral succession; it is another thing entirely to reject the episcopate as unbiblical. So while the arguments often sound similar, they're of two distinct spirits on the matter. You rightly point this out at the beginning of the video -- this is the view of St. Jerome, Thomas Aquinas, Lutheranism/Methodism, etc.
Fascinatingly, this 'via media' was essentially the approach encouraged by the WCC Lima Text (BEM). In order to get everyone to reunite, both extremes would have to compromise: those with episcopal succession would have to recognize the validity of those without, and those who traditionally reject bishops would have to learn to receive them for the sake of unity.
Hello pastor (how should I address you, by the way?). I am visiting an Anglican (ACNA) congregation in Ga. tomorrow. A friend is going with me. It's young. I hope to see my first Anglican service in person. Your videos have been really helpful to me. Also, I used to live in Baton Rouge for a year or so.
"We assert that, before they [the Apostles] departed from earth to heaven, they placed in the great cities a Bishop, in authority superior to, and in power greater than the other presbyters. He was Chief Pastor of that city; he possessed a superiority, not only over the laity, but over the clergy or presbyters of the same city. Such was Titus at Crete, Timothy at Ephesus, James at Jerusalem, Euodias at Antioch, Amianus at Alexandria, Polycarp at Smyrna, not to mention others, who, it is most certain, were exalted to the Episcopal seat, the apostles being alive, and seeing, approving, nay, even directing, that very thing. It is also certain that, throughout the Universal Church of Christ, the successors of these also held a certain eminent authority over their own flock and over inferior ministers; and it is equally certain that there was a succession of the same." - Bishop John Davenant
What about the requirements for office that they must have walked with Christ from His Baptism to His Accession given in Acts? Acts 1:21-22 “Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” That's why while I can understand and accept a 3 fold structure, I can't get behind "apostolic succession" which every church that has Bishops, that I know of, claims except the REC before they changed as well.
This is a good question. Pretty clearly there are some aspects of the Apostolic ministry that were totally unique to the first generation (such as being eye witnesses of the Resurrection, or teaching/writing what became New Testament Scripture); that is why I try to always say that SOME of the apostolic responsibilities (and related authority) is passed to their chosen successors. Certainly not all aspects of apostleship can be passed on to others. I think this should also cause us to be a bit more modest in claims about episcopal authority. It is real and (like the authority of parents over children) it is God-given and ought to be respected; but that does not make it infallible or indefectible.
@@danielhixon8209 Why do no churches with an episcopal structure take the more moderate and modest stance? Why do they all claim Apostolic authority rather than take the stance of the old REC where the structure is an ancient and good form of church government with advantages but no special authority that isn't given to it from the church that assents to it? I would also strongly disagree of it being like a parent and a child since Christ tells us our leaders are to be servants not lords and parents are not talked about as servants to their children. I would also not say it is God-given since it is never mentioned explicitly in scripture,(the third order of Bishops, not the authority of the church elders) and even your own arguments for it are typological and have flaws. In a church that has Bishops they should have more responsibilities, not more power as to elevate a leader with more power flies directly against the structure which Christ taught us. For example examining people for ordination should not be a power, but a responsibility. If a wolf gets in, it is his fault. Matthew 20:25-28 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave- just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
Thank you for your teaching I have learned a lot from you. So I have a question. Is it biblical for someone to graduate from a Bible college then goes out on their own and starts their own church? That seems to happen a lot. Or when someone leaves a church with no schooling and starts a church is that biblical?
You've laid your finger on one reason why I am uncomfortable with those sorts of non-denominational churches that begin with a man who decides he is supposed to be a pastor. Starting your own religion is a very American thing to do, but I would say that the pattern we see in the Bible is that 1) "no priest takes that honor upon himself, but only when called by God" and that 2) the normal way that a genuine call is differentiated from "flights of fancy" (or worse still, spiritual pride) is by having proper church authorities first "test them" (1 Tim. 3:10). The whole reason St. Paul writes 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1 is to give the bishops (Timothy and Titus) instructions on how to test and appoint deacons and elders. They are definitely not self-appointed. Of course, it is God who calls people, and the Holy Spirit is able to raise up pastors and churches out of the very stones if he so chooses; but the normal way that the Lord works to build and establish his people is through his body on earth, that is, through his visible church. Even if there were an unusual case where the Spirit raised up a body of believers without organic connection to the larger church universal/catholic (say underground believers in China who found a Bible and the Spirit converted them and brought them together), even in that case the proper thing to do, as soon as possible, is to come under the authority of episcopal oversight so as to be visibly connected with the larger church. Otherwise you risk becoming a sect or even a cult.
Once again thank you I am just 1 year in to my second career as a full time UMC pastor after 4 years of part time work. And it still amazes me how that I never once said that I wanted to be clergy but people inside the district just keep encouraging me along the way. God speed and I pray that your new ministry is a blessed one. John Lyons
I am researching the ACNA. I have been undergoing a long spiritual struggle, and at times I'm not even a true believer. However, at other times I experience an unaccountable yearning to return to faith. I was once a pretty devout believer in Wesleyan theology (I read the sermons). Later, I became angry and disillusioned. The details are boring. If I manage to be reconciled with God, I won't return to the UMC, Pentecostalism, or anything resembling the teachings of Bill Gothard. I am drawn to a liturgical church with sound doctrine. Apparently the ACNA and the LCMS resemble that description. I'm still in the deep woods, so I don't know if I'll ever be able to overcome my doubts and frustration. Make no mistake, I've been a pretty vile sinner.
God bless you, sir. I hope you find a good congregation that helps you find the rest in Christ your soul needs. If you are looking for a church with traditional teaching and classic liturgy, the ACNA and LCMS are good places to look.
@@danielhixon8209 I am now attending an Anglican church. I believe Christ is bringing me back to repentance and faith. Culturally and spiritually, I think Anglicanism may be my home.
![[4K] Watch SpaceX Catch A Starship Rocket From Space!!! #IFT5](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pIKI7y3DTXk/mqdefault.jpg)
That last argument is really good against Presbyterians specifically
Hey brother. Congratulations on making the switch. May God bless you in it. I am a newcomer to the ACNA myself and seeking ordination so hearing your thoughts and experiences are very valuable. I look forward to following your journey!
Thank you for taking the time to describe your insights into church polity. I appreciate that great, Wesleyan catholic spirit, your generous spirit when making your argument.
Welcome, Daniel, to the Anglican/English branch of the Catholic faith. Thank you for mentioning Jonah ! His channel is great. Gavin does good work too although I don't understand why Gavin is still a Baptist !
I'm an English Catholic (Anglo) Franciscan Deacon in the Continuum. I appreciate your videos !
Yes, I really love Jonah's channel. Anglican Aesthetics is really good too. Gavin's brother (Dane) is, I believe, a Presbyterian minister, and his father (Ray) is an Anglican priest in my diocese. From his channel I gather that Gavin is simply convinced of Credo-baptism. Must be some interesting holiday discussions. Given his other commitments, though, it would not shock me one day to hear that Gavin moved into a more historic/sacramental communion. We will see.
@@danielhixon8209 Deacon Daniel, I had not heard of Anglican Aesthetics. I will check it out. I admire Gavin's scholarship and his research into the Early Church. I think he is a super smart guy; yet his credo-baptism puzzles me. Infant Baptism has been the practice of the Early Church from as far back as we have records. Gavin might say that infant baptism is not mentioned in the Bible or Early Church until the 2-3 century; but the fact that there is no opposition to infant baptism in the writings of the Early Church other than the heretical view of "one should postpone baptism until just before death" so that all of their post conversion sins could be washed away. If infant baptism was an innovation and not a part of Apostolic practice there would have been a recorded fight over the issue..
Anyway. Thank you for a your channel !
@@roddumlauf9241 I completely agree; in my video on why we baptize babies I make exactly that point: introducing infant baptism as an innovation and departure from the Apostolic practice would be a big change. If that happened somebody somewhere would have objected; there would have been a dispute. We have evidence of many disputes in those early years - and yet not even a hint that this was ever a topic of debate. Add to that how the OT analogues of baptism (circumcision and passing through the Red sea) both included children and babies, and how it is the universal practice across the ages, I think the weight of evidence clearly favors the classical position as the Apostolic teaching.
I think the traditional Wesleyan/Lutheran approach is healthy ecumenically (as opposed to say Congregationalist or Presbyterian approaches) -- it is one thing to highly value the three-fold ministry but for various historical contingencies defend the validity of presbyteral succession; it is another thing entirely to reject the episcopate as unbiblical.
So while the arguments often sound similar, they're of two distinct spirits on the matter.
You rightly point this out at the beginning of the video -- this is the view of St. Jerome, Thomas Aquinas, Lutheranism/Methodism, etc.
Fascinatingly, this 'via media' was essentially the approach encouraged by the WCC Lima Text (BEM). In order to get everyone to reunite, both extremes would have to compromise: those with episcopal succession would have to recognize the validity of those without, and those who traditionally reject bishops would have to learn to receive them for the sake of unity.
Hello pastor (how should I address you, by the way?). I am visiting an Anglican (ACNA) congregation in Ga. tomorrow. A friend is going with me. It's young. I hope to see my first Anglican service in person. Your videos have been really helpful to me. Also, I used to live in Baton Rouge for a year or so.
Hope it all went well. Feel free to call me whatever you'd like :)
@@danielhixon8209 Very well Father Hixon. Have a good week!
"We assert that, before they [the Apostles] departed from earth to heaven, they placed in the great cities a Bishop, in authority superior to, and in power greater than the other presbyters. He was Chief Pastor of that city; he possessed a superiority, not only over the laity, but over the clergy or presbyters of the same city. Such was Titus at Crete, Timothy at Ephesus, James at Jerusalem, Euodias at Antioch, Amianus at Alexandria, Polycarp at Smyrna, not to mention others, who, it is most certain, were exalted to the Episcopal seat, the apostles being alive, and seeing, approving, nay, even directing, that very thing. It is also certain that, throughout the Universal Church of Christ, the successors of these also held a certain eminent authority over their own flock and over inferior ministers; and it is equally certain that there was a succession of the same." - Bishop John Davenant
What about the requirements for office that they must have walked with Christ from His Baptism to His Accession given in Acts? Acts 1:21-22 “Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.”
That's why while I can understand and accept a 3 fold structure, I can't get behind "apostolic succession" which every church that has Bishops, that I know of, claims except the REC before they changed as well.
This is a good question. Pretty clearly there are some aspects of the Apostolic ministry that were totally unique to the first generation (such as being eye witnesses of the Resurrection, or teaching/writing what became New Testament Scripture); that is why I try to always say that SOME of the apostolic responsibilities (and related authority) is passed to their chosen successors. Certainly not all aspects of apostleship can be passed on to others. I think this should also cause us to be a bit more modest in claims about episcopal authority. It is real and (like the authority of parents over children) it is God-given and ought to be respected; but that does not make it infallible or indefectible.
@@danielhixon8209 Why do no churches with an episcopal structure take the more moderate and modest stance? Why do they all claim Apostolic authority rather than take the stance of the old REC where the structure is an ancient and good form of church government with advantages but no special authority that isn't given to it from the church that assents to it?
I would also strongly disagree of it being like a parent and a child since Christ tells us our leaders are to be servants not lords and parents are not talked about as servants to their children. I would also not say it is God-given since it is never mentioned explicitly in scripture,(the third order of Bishops, not the authority of the church elders) and even your own arguments for it are typological and have flaws.
In a church that has Bishops they should have more responsibilities, not more power as to elevate a leader with more power flies directly against the structure which Christ taught us. For example examining people for ordination should not be a power, but a responsibility. If a wolf gets in, it is his fault.
Matthew 20:25-28 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave- just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
Thank you for your teaching I have learned a lot from you. So I have a question. Is it biblical for someone to graduate from a Bible college then goes out on their own and starts their own church? That seems to happen a lot. Or when someone leaves a church with no schooling and starts a church is that biblical?
You've laid your finger on one reason why I am uncomfortable with those sorts of non-denominational churches that begin with a man who decides he is supposed to be a pastor. Starting your own religion is a very American thing to do, but I would say that the pattern we see in the Bible is that 1) "no priest takes that honor upon himself, but only when called by God" and that 2) the normal way that a genuine call is differentiated from "flights of fancy" (or worse still, spiritual pride) is by having proper church authorities first "test them" (1 Tim. 3:10). The whole reason St. Paul writes 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1 is to give the bishops (Timothy and Titus) instructions on how to test and appoint deacons and elders. They are definitely not self-appointed.
Of course, it is God who calls people, and the Holy Spirit is able to raise up pastors and churches out of the very stones if he so chooses; but the normal way that the Lord works to build and establish his people is through his body on earth, that is, through his visible church. Even if there were an unusual case where the Spirit raised up a body of believers without organic connection to the larger church universal/catholic (say underground believers in China who found a Bible and the Spirit converted them and brought them together), even in that case the proper thing to do, as soon as possible, is to come under the authority of episcopal oversight so as to be visibly connected with the larger church. Otherwise you risk becoming a sect or even a cult.
Once again thank you I am just 1 year in to my second career as a full time UMC pastor after 4 years of part time work. And it still amazes me how that I never once said that I wanted to be clergy but people inside the district just keep encouraging me along the way. God speed and I pray that your new ministry is a blessed one. John Lyons
I am researching the ACNA. I have been undergoing a long spiritual struggle, and at times I'm not even a true believer. However, at other times I experience an unaccountable yearning to return to faith. I was once a pretty devout believer in Wesleyan theology (I read the sermons). Later, I became angry and disillusioned. The details are boring. If I manage to be reconciled with God, I won't return to the UMC, Pentecostalism, or anything resembling the teachings of Bill Gothard. I am drawn to a liturgical church with sound doctrine. Apparently the ACNA and the LCMS resemble that description. I'm still in the deep woods, so I don't know if I'll ever be able to overcome my doubts and frustration. Make no mistake, I've been a pretty vile sinner.
God bless you, sir. I hope you find a good congregation that helps you find the rest in Christ your soul needs. If you are looking for a church with traditional teaching and classic liturgy, the ACNA and LCMS are good places to look.
@@danielhixon8209 Your words are an encouragement. "Rest in Christ" resonates deeply with me.
@@danielhixon8209 I am now attending an Anglican church. I believe Christ is bringing me back to repentance and faith. Culturally and spiritually, I think Anglicanism may be my home.