Presbyterian here. This is great stuff, and it brings me great joy to hear that we can agree so much on this.

@janettedavis6627

Жыл бұрын

Scripture tells us Shortly after the Jews gain Israel the Perpetual Sacrifice will be removed and the Abomination of Desolation replaced therin then comes the end of time for the Gentiles. Vatican11 Imposters Secret Societies removed the Perpetual Sacrifice worship and installed a diluted Christianity. Jewish Passover Prayers said in the Temple in Jerusalem came over to the Gentiles by the Apostles . His Own Death Prayers said in the Temple in Jerusalem. This is in Scripture.

Great video! As an "Angloterian" who attends both an Anglican (ACNA) and Presbyterian (PCA) Church, I wouldn't be able to join with the Anglicans if they didn't have the views on the Sacraments that they have. Continuing to pray for you and your family! God's blessings!

@jamiecharles8334

Ай бұрын

Me as well. I’m a Baplican. 😂

There's also an interesting question here with sacramental theology generally in Protestantism, which is that if Christ completed his work objectively in history (historia salutis) and we can put our faith in the reality of the "Christ Event" even apart from sacramental participation (ordo salutis), the argument goes: what need is there for sacraments? Why not just have preachers?? Fair enough, but I think this is one of those areas where we assume too much in the question. Christ certainly achieved our salvation, and faith (alone, apart from works) is of course the means by which we benefit from that work... but it is not enough to "believe" in the story of Christ as though it were mere information we have to ascent to... (Salvation accomplished =/= Salvation applied). Rather, we have to participate _in Christ_ , through the Church, through the sacraments... faith is not the instrument of delivery but of reception, it is the internal disposition necessary whereby the sacraments effect and apply salvation to us. The locus of salvation for the individual is not 2000 years ago where it was accomplished, but in the present whereby the signs (as means) deliver that of which they promise -- they don't merely remind us of the past and thereby strengthen our faith, but give us Christ directly. Sola Fide if misunderstood as belief in information alone can circumvent all of these divinely instituted realities of our salvation in which case it is an evil and abominable heresy -- of course it isn't, and so it mustn't mean such a thing. This is why in the Lutheran Church, we are clear to state that "The Gospel" is not simply information _about_ Christ (of course it is at least that), but more than that fact it _is_ Christ, and delivers Him in the very preaching, baptizing, communing, absolving, etc. Christ cannot remain in the past (or locked away in Heaven) but must be given to us today, in the present -- _sacramentally, not locally of course_

@newkingdommedia9434

2 жыл бұрын

This is very well worded and is more or less what I was trying to say in my video about why sacraments are salvific.

@vngelicath1580

2 жыл бұрын

@@newkingdommedia9434 Appreciate it, I was working through my words carefully for a while lol

@truthisbeautiful7492

Жыл бұрын

Have you listened to the defense of the Augsburg confession? Yes, it is not mere affirmation of the history, but trusting in Jesus, knowing that our sins are forgiven for the sake of Christ. So knowledge, assent, and trust. So it's the Word of God. Faith comes by hearing, hearing by the Word of God.

Great video as always, River.

@newkingdommedia9434

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you very much!

I appreciate this video as it shows the more historic view of the Eucharist of the CoE and also makes me realise why we Orthodox and our Catholic brethren find it so hard to see how the CoE has valid sacraments.

@newkingdommedia9434

2 жыл бұрын

@@lilbudgie1 If you are going to abandon our Formularies then you cannot speak of "our" dogma, only your own privately held opinion.

@Lepewhi

Жыл бұрын

Well, they are protestants.

The WCF also says that the celebration of the Eucharistic is the highest form of oblation by the church.

@Psalm144.1

11 ай бұрын

Which sub chapter?

Have you read the Treatise & Disputation on the Eucharist by Peter Martyr Vermigli? I believe it would complement your studies on the Early Anglican debates on the subject if you have not read it already. Great video as always!

@CDC39A

2 жыл бұрын

Vermigli is great.

@newkingdommedia9434

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you! And no I haven't yet but I have read about his influence on Cranmer's thinking

Hey brother. I’m trying to find scriptural arguments for episcopal polity. Do you have some videos?

My earliest memory of the CHristian Liturgy was that of the Lutheran Church. Alas, my stepfather, born Lutheran, drifted away from Lutheranism, probably because Lutherans renounce and revile the Lodge (i.e. Freemasonry) and ny step-family was Masonic on just about every side, Masons and, for the ladies, Eastern Star. We eventually ended up Presbyterians. I ended up becoming Anglican when in the Navy. However, I did not realise that not all Anglicans believe as Lutherans do in the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist. For years I believed that all Anglicans believed as Lutherans do about the matter. Then, when shocked, I accepted reluctantly that Anlicans were free to believe in various interpretations of the Lord's Supper, I put up with that compromise for quite a long time until, finally, I accepted that such compromise is lunacceptable and that one either accepted what Lutherans firmly believe (and, basically, Eastern Orthodox, too) about the Real Presence, or one rejected Anglican teaching, which is less catholic even than what Presybertans professes, or one contents oneself with putting up with confusion and heresy about the Eucharist, Anglican and Baptist style.

@Psalm144.1

11 ай бұрын

He’s teaching Anglican formularies. Anglicans don’t believe the Bible teaches a physical corporal presence.

Eucharist is a gift of assurance this assurance that Christ died for you and you are forgiven empowers your faith, which intern strengthens the Holy Spirits presence within you. Is this accurate?

Is receptionism also sometimes called parallelism? Or are those two different things?

The Eucharist is a sacrifice, just not a propitiatory sacrifice. The Eucharistic action is based more in the sacrifices of the Passover (anamnetic participation) and the Peace-Offering (offerings made not to restore peace with God, but made _because_ we have peace with God), rather than the propitiatory, animal sacrifice(s) of the High Priest. With Christ's once-for-all Life, Death and Resurrection (and eternal priestly role at the Heavenly Altar), the only sacrifice that _can_ carry over from the Old Testament is the peace-offering/new Passover... our perpetual act of worship and thanksgiving/gratitude through which we participate in Christ.

so eucharist is not because god has forgotten or recinded his covenant with us but because in out fallen state we believe he has forgotten us or taken back his love? thank you fir this 🙏🤍

Thanks for the video. Does Anglicanism universally require adherence to Total Depravity?

@Psalm144.1

11 ай бұрын

No, you don’t have to believe that. The formularies teach that however.

I agree that the Eucharist should not be seen as sacrificing Christ over and over again, but would it not be true to say that the eucharistic meal is a mystical participation in Christ's eternally effective sacrifice in a way that is outside of time, just as Christ is described as interceding for us before the Father? I think you touched on this, or got close to this, when you described the Church as lifting up body and blood to God as the highest possible worship that can be given, participating in that worship that Christ gave to the Father on the cross.

Two questions on the Real Presence and your mention of Eucharist's symbolism. 1. Can a non-faithful person disrespect the Eucharist? Because the Eucharist is only subjectively the body and blood of Jesus Christ, to a non-faithful (e.g. non-christian) person, the Eucharist is just both objectively and subjectively wafer and wine, not body and blood of Jesus Christ. Does it mean a non-faithful person can freely disrespect the Eucharist? If not, why? 2. Can Children without confirmation receive the Eucharist? Our Church Council is having a debate on this matter.

@saintejeannedarc9460

7 ай бұрын

The Anglican view of the Eucharist is definitely more nuanced. I agree w/ real presence as well, just not physical presence. Since communion is holy, a non believer shouldn't be taking communion. It seems like anyone can disrespect the Eucharist.

You seemed to suggest at one point that total depravity is something within our nature. You said this in the context of speaking about believers. I want to clarify: you don't believe that born again, regenerate Christians still possess total depravity, do you?

@newkingdommedia9434

2 жыл бұрын

No I don't, which part was this? Mind you, while we are regenerated, there is still a war in our members and we do still sin daily, however, now we can also will what is good and do what is pleasing to God.

@merecatholicity

2 жыл бұрын

@@newkingdommedia9434 It was towards the beginning. Glad to hear I misunderstood. And yes, I agree. The battle continues after we are made alive to God, but our works done in faith-though they cannot put away our sin-are truly pleasing to God in Christ.

@jakeabbatacola5092

11 ай бұрын

@@merecatholicityBut you’re still totally depraved. Ask anyone that knows you. The way you worded your original comment, you’re basically Baptist.

Why was John 6 so offensive to everyone that listened if it's just a spiritual eating and not literal? I'm not saying you're wrong. But it is puzzling that people found it offensive.

@newkingdommedia9434

2 жыл бұрын

First of all, when we say it's a spiritual eating this does NOT mean it is not literal. There is a Western tendency to view "spiritual" realities as not being real since they're not physical and that is to be utterly rejected. Our faith is spiritual, but no less real. Demons are not physical but spiritual, but no less real. Even God the Father and God the Spirit are spiritual and not physical but are the very basis for reality. We do not feed on Christ physically, but we do it spiritually, and this does not mean it isn't literal or real. That should be enough to answer your question regardless since the point is that we do really and truly eat and drink Christ, but, even besides that, the people were offended for the same reason they always were: Jesus was making exalted claims about himself. To say that he is the sustenance that nourishes us to eternal life and that we must feed on him to be saved is to claim to be God, as his Jewish listeners knew, and hence it was either true or offensive blasphemy.

@candyclews4047

Жыл бұрын

@@newkingdommedia9434 At last, the explanation I have been looking for. Thank you!

Do you think there is a real difference between Bullinger and Calvin? Does it matter? I've read True Defense by Cramner - brilliant. I wonder if the book is closer to Bullinger then Calvin and Reformed Confessions. I note that the 17th work 'History of Papal Transubstantion' cites Reformed Confessions and Calvin himself, and Jewel, but doesn't spend time on Cramner. Since Bullinger signed documents with Calvin, how do you understand that? That is, do you see Cramner in harmony with the continental Reformed Confessions?

@newkingdommedia9434

Жыл бұрын

I think that Cranmer was in agreement with those confessions and yeah, any differences between Bullinger and Calvin on this issue I dont think matter much and it becomes hair splitting.

@truthisbeautiful7492

Жыл бұрын

@@newkingdommedia9434 thanks that is helpful. The spiritual presence view seems to be what the Reformed Confessions teach. Have you read the new book Disillusioned by Joshua the former EO theologian yet? He includes a statement by Zwingli to the French King who was the pastor before Bullinger, arguing that Zwingli has been mis presented and actually agreed with the Reformed confessional view. I see that Zwingli and kither could not agree, but Bullinger and Calvin agreed, and Bucer trained Calvin. I know that Bucer and Luther and Melancthon both signed the Wittenberg concord, but what I recall it has been claimed to teach that unworthy communicats eat the true body and Bucer also worked with Cramner. I guess the Reformed view of Christology and the Supper is close but not compatible with the confessional book of concord view. Although i have read a post-restoration Anglican writer who seemed to argue that both the Reformed and Ausburg confessions were compatible with church of England practice (although he was clear on specifics that the church of England held to the Reformed view of the Supper). Which is a little surprising to me, as there was a move away from seeing Rome as Antichrist or even putting justification as a key difference but insisting on a Reformed view of the Supper (written during Charles the 2nd exile).

@truthisbeautiful7492

Жыл бұрын

@@newkingdommedia9434 but yes that is very helpful thank you. Reading Cramner's book was so helpful to me and Vermgili's disputation on the eucharist which I bought with it is very similar covers the passages and fathers throughout the disputation addressing objections.

@colinlavelle7806

10 ай бұрын

Thomas Cranmer was the perfect disciple of Henry VIII...he did what the King required him to do..he was the Kings yes, make it happen man. He dissolved the valid marriage between Henry and Catherine of Aragon to suit the King because he was infatuated with the scheming Anne Boleyn. And what did he do to prevent the execution of Anne Boleyn....nothing.

@truthisbeautiful7492

10 ай бұрын

@@colinlavelle7806 do you think the alleged misdeeds of Cramner have some relevance to the truth of falsity of his religious arguments or office?

So I have one disagreement concerning the Eucharist. You say the sacrament is a symbol of the body and blood and you quoted 1Cor where it say if someone take the Lord’s supper in an unworthy manor they will be guilty of the body and blood. Scripture does not say that you will be guilty of the representation of the body or symbols of what it stands for but exclusively and particularly the body and blood. I believe there is something more to it than just mere symbols and signs however I don’t believe that Rome can explain it away with transubstantiation but it is rather mysterious to maybe mean what it says. If people were doing it in unworthy manner and were held accountable and guilty for it then it sounds unlikely that it was just a symbol of the body and blood. I think I will play it safe and pretend it is the body and blood of our Lord. I really respect your work you do just a slight disagreement. God bless you and the work you are doing for God’s kingdom! Amen

@mcmbslipknotmcr

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, honestly I'm of the same mind as well. The mystery of the Eucharist seems to grand for the Anglican Formularies or Roman Transubstantiation.

@colinlavelle7806

Жыл бұрын

The early Church Fathers all had things to say about the Eucharist and they all upheld the 'real presence' . St Ignatius of Antioch 1st century. St Justin Martyr 2nd century. St Ambrose of Milan. St Jerome. St Augustine of Hippo....so the real presence was held by the early Church. The whole of Christ is truly present, body, soul and divinity under the appearance of bread and wine-the glorified Christ who rose from the dead after dying for our sins. This is what the Church means when she speaks of the 'real presence' of Christ in the Eucharist.

@candyclews4047

Жыл бұрын

If you scroll up on this thread, you will find a good explanation of the Eucharist.

@jakeabbatacola5092

11 ай бұрын

You resort to pretending?

Much good here but I do not believe in PREDESTINATION. We have FREE WILL.

And what happens when bishops appoint women to be priests in direct opposition to scripture?

Have you ever thought about becoming a priest?

Obviously, there are many, many points I disagree with, here. One glaring issue, I think, is found beginning around 20:30. You rightly point out that we re-ordain those who are Presbyterian or Baptist or Methodist, etc. However, we don't re-ordain Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, etc. Historically, we never have. In your neo-Reformed understanding, why do you think that that is the case?

@newkingdommedia9434

2 жыл бұрын

Because they've already been appointed by a Bishop and authorized by Episcopal authority? The point is that since Anglicanism is Episcopal, you can't have someone enter ordained ministry and bypass that system, but obviously that isn't the case with the RCC and EOC. The quote is: "they would need to be re-ordained by a Bishop." If you disagree with my point, do you not think Presbyterians and Lutherans have the Eucharist?

@barelyprotestant5365

2 жыл бұрын

@@newkingdommedia9434 my point is that you consider a Presbyterian pastor to be closer to truth, theologically, by far than a Roman priest. Your understanding of clergymen within Anglicanism is that they are basically Presbyterians, only with a Bishop over them. If that's the case, if there's basically no connection between the Roman and the Anglican understanding of the basic, fundamental aspects of a priest, why did Anglicans not re-ordain Roman priests who joined Anglicanism?

@newkingdommedia9434

2 жыл бұрын

@@barelyprotestant5365 Theological differences are besides the point, the point is simply being authorized by an Episcopal authority. It's not your beliefs that authorize you. Also you didn't answer the question.

@barelyprotestant5365

2 жыл бұрын

@@newkingdommedia9434 I mean, especially given that you reject Apostolic Succession, it seems that as long as there is something to the equivalent of a Bishop, you'd be fine with them being received rather than ordained. Obviously, they're still ordained. And I can't be assured that those who aren't ordained by valid Bishops validly consecrate the Eucharist. I can only know what I've received.

@newkingdommedia9434

2 жыл бұрын

@@barelyprotestant5365 I don't reject apostolic succession. But I do reject the necessity of tactile apostolic succession for the validity of the sacraments.

This Anglican believes it is what Jesus said it was. Period. It is more than a symbol. Your views are not universal in Anglicanism. If I believed your views, I'd just go back to my other denomination I grew up in- why become Anglican? What I got from this video is- just anything goes.... you met yourself coming and going a few times. I have enjoyed your videos- but this one is a hot mess.