วีดีโอ

And I speak to that in my previous video called The Word of the Lord. Not all things from Vatican II are horrible changes. The phrase itself is a constant reminder of the inspiration of Scripture since we connect it to every Old and New Testament reading. Thanks for watching and leaving a comment!

It is true that the COE is a wreck by their not following the simple truth of Scripture. That downgrading of Scripture has led to many being in opposition to COE and working to establish new jurisdictions. Here in the states, the ACNA is mostly formed by priests and churches leaving TEC because of the same things.

I can see that. But making experience one of our lens has always made me nervous as it can so easily take over the whole paradigm. Experience often gets boiled down to feelings and how Scripture makes me feel. Yet, there is an importance to acknowledging the role that experience plays when kept in the right location. I'm not sure I would raise it up to becoming one of the lens through which we view Scripture, but it is certainly an aspect that at least is connected to reason regarding application of Scripture. And how you use experience, I think, is also connected to how you connect textual meaning and application to each other. Is application so wrapped up in meaning that it can never change and is always an inherent part of the meaning of the text or not? I always appreciated on of my seminary profs who said that "meaning is a circle," that is, there is a wide swath of area around the absolute and primary point of the text, the center you might say. Thus you can have tangential meanings that relate back to the primary meaning which helps includes application of the text. These tangential things are what you see coming out of the text and may differ from time to time because of your accumulated experiences, but your goal is always to drive toward the central aspect of the passage. Hence, we can always go back and discover aspects of the text that we never saw before as we continue to study it.

@@graceanglicangastonia9076 Amen!

I've always appreciated the article. It's emphasis on things necessary to salvation are easily found in Scripture allows there to be some room for working through the much harder doctrines as well as allowing some leave-way regarding doctrinal disagreements to a certain extent. We can all develop a very strong foundation of agreement, but we must always acknowledge that some things are not spelt out enough for us to know them fully and there will be slightly different understandings. However, the foundation is always clear and to deviate from that foundation is to deviate from Scripture. I think that that is what makes the 39 articles fantastic. They lay a hefty and strong foundation of doctrine that is clearly laid out in Scripture, but carefully recognize that there are some extension of these doctrines that may get built out slightly differently in different times and places, but those must always go back to the foundation laid out. They give to us a proper "pale of understanding" for where we need to always be when it comes to our understanding of the faith without getting into the weeds of controversial explanations.

Thanks! So glad you found us and have been blessed. You’ve been a blessing and benefit to all we do!

I have to admit that I had to look up Gadamer, as that is a name I’m unfamiliar with. 😊 Thanks!

he is very important to those of us that work from a perspective of Biblical Theology--that Biblical Theology is not a historic endeavor, which is better described as Biblical Literature, but that Biblical Theology is reading the revealed God of scripture and the theology of the text itself as primary and then using tools like Gadamer's bridge to build a from an ancient text, in another language and from an entirely different thought world can speak in a contemporary setting with the same authenticity, life changing power from the same Spirit that spoke into and shaped the faith community in which the text first lived and breathed to speak that same transformative Word of the Father. Well i did run on a bit--but you get the idea.

@@genegifford ahhhh! I read about his work but wasn’t fully understanding of what it all meant since it was a brief synopsis. So now I understand that your compliment wasn’t only a nice word to me but truly high praise. Thank you for that explanation and even more for your gracious words above.

That could be fun!

Amen

Glad you found it useful for yourself! Blessings to you!

Leaving a comment still helps the video statistics and helps the video get to more people. Great job helping out the channel! :D <3

@@xXxevilgoatxXx it does, but in the long run it’s the content of my comment that matters. When those who are questioning their faith come to converse I will offer honest debate. I was still in the church when I started my deconversion.

@@fonoflux1 I'd love to debate with you, the facts are there are over 5000 manuscript that are over 95% identical in their original written language that you, yourself can translate if you want with modern technology. All of which are eye witness testimony of individuals. We know things exist in history because of the large number of eye witnesses, it's not like we have a video of George Washington as the first president. Our dating system was adopted because of this historical event of the resurrection. Now what's myth?

It's my pleasure. I'm grateful that you are finding them helpful.

⁠I live close to the hq of the Anglican North American church near Loganville Georgia great church

I bet that’s awesome! Have you been able to visit the cathedral there?

Amen!

Thanks so much! I appreciate it.

For those referring to this as the 11th Sunday they are probably counting it from Trinity Sunday. That is the traditional way in the one year lectionary that is found in the the 1662 and 1928 Books of Common Prayer. With liturgical changes in the '60s, a three year lectionary was introduced that counting Sundays after Pentecost instead of Trinity. So counting from Pentecost Sunday, we are on the 12th Sunday after Pentecost. If counting from Trinity Sunday (which of course is the first Sunday after Pentecost), it is always one less Sunday, being the 11th Sunday after Trinity or 11th Sunday in/of Trinitytide (I think you can say that haha). If someone is calling this the 11th Sunday after Pentecost, then they've confused their counting and are mixing up the names based on which Sunday they count from. Is there a particular church out there that you saw this name with? I haven't seen any that confused the dating myself, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are some since both countings are used in the ACNA.

Glad you liked it!

Very true! They couldn't even view the face of Moses after he had been in the presence of God and carried the glory down the mountain. And here, the Father gives the gift of seeing Christ's glory revealed in as much as they could receive it at that time. The Transfiguration is an absolutely astounding moment in Jesus' ministry and a preparation for these three disciples to go forth with the message of who Jesus is and by being who he is, that he has thus accomplished the work the Father sent him to do.

Thank you. Here in the United States, Anglican usually means conservative and traditional. Historically, our branch of Christianity, was called The Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America, now simply called The Episcopal Church. When conservatives and traditionally minded believers began leaving the Episcopal Church, they took on the name Anglican to distinguish themselves from Episcopalians. However, Anglican is synonymous with the Church of England which has significant problems and has moved more and more toward liberalism. So, Anglican on a worldwide scale can still mean liberal Christian, but the Global South is also a stalwart place of faithfulness within Anglicanism. And we in the states who left the Episcopal Church starting in the early 2000s would not be here without the support of Global South bishops desiring to see the reemergence of faithful biblical Anglicans in North America. Thanks for stopping by and watching and checking out the website. Have a blessed day!

Those are two true things right there! That's another video I need to start thinking through, the connection between Scripture as the word of God and Jesus as the Word of God. I'm sure there are already explanations out there, but still one I need to think about making.

It is not required. The requirements of wearing it in all official duties would also vary from diocese to diocese. Thank you for the question!

@@graceanglicangastonia9076 Got it. Thanks for the response.

Thank you!

Didn’t think of it at the time since we keep corporal on the altar unless it needs to be cleaned. But yes, I should have mentioned that as well!

Thank you very much. I appreciate it. May your day be blessed!

The use of the apocrypha comes out of the 39 articles. In the 6th article, it explains the sufficiency of Scripture for salvation. Things that can't be read from or proved by Scripture are not to be required of anyone for salvation. The article goes on to state what Scripture is comprised of. It is the Old and New Testaments. Regarding the Apocrypha, the article says that these books are read for example of life and instruction of manners, but are not to be used to establish doctrine, ultimately because they are not considered inspired Scripture. So the Apocrypha is maintained because it has been in use from the earliest days of the church since it was attached to the Greek translation of the Old Testament. Cranmer put readings from it into the daily office because it had use for example and instructions of manners (consider some of the wisdom writings in it and how they explain righteous living, etc.). The 2019 maintains this tradition of including the Apocrypha because it was in the 1662. These books do not establish doctrines, but may help us to understand how to live in light of revelation and wisdom. So we still have readings from them here and there in the lectionary, though some will replace them with Old Testament readings when they appear in the lectionary.

Thanks so much. It is very appreciated. I'll have to make one talking about deacons, priests, and bishops at some point since I barely touched on it before I realized that that wasn't the point of the video haha

Blessings to you as well! I pray that your work continues to go well and that your travels are safe.

We use the Celebration Hymnal from 1997. Our musician is a wonderful blessing to us! Thank you for watching. I hope you were blessed.

Amen! But it is such a comfort to know that others are praying the same liturgies as you are when you are not able to join others in corporate worship. Blessings to you always!

Thanks so much! Glad it was good for you.

It's my pleasure. I appreciate the well thought out questions that aren't 'gotcha' or 'troll-baiting' questions. I'm glad you ask them and are seeking to understand.

This is a big question. I would say that looking for a nearer congregation/priest/bishop to talk to about your unique situation and being a member within the ACNA would be wise. Though in all honesty, considering where you are, I don't imagine there would be a problem with you being member of the ACNA as long as their is a connection to a 'local-ish' congregation through giving and worship together when able, not purposefully neglecting (as in the wanton disregard/indifference to corporate worship, as opposed to deeply desiring to attend and be connected yet unable to attend due to life circumstances ) the gathering of the saints. That is, theological distinctions aside ;) (I don't know all the possible places where there may be disagreement and how significant each area is in the grand scheme and where some disagreements may actually be complementary aspects of working out an understanding of the Faith). Lastly, I thought you may have misspelled minstral, but then I thought, 'mistral looks like it probably is a real word and not a type, so I looked it up and learned that mistral is a 'strong, cold northwesterly wind that blows from southern France into the Gulf of Lion' and I thought, now that is quite the personal description haha

I think that 'granting' absolution is of the same nature as 'proclaiming' absolution. In the public absolution, the emphasis is certainly a sense of a petition to the Father to bring absolution to the people, but I think that in the broader context of the priesthood, especially with recognition that the original absolution in Morning Prayer does include the phrase that Christ has given authority to his ordained ministers to declare and pronounce absolution to the people (though this form does not have a direct pronouncement, but is still in a petition/blessing form of prayer for the people to receive it from God), that even the petition/blessing forms are a direct pronouncement upon the people of absolution. Alongside that, in the 1662's Visitation of the Sick section, there is a direct pronouncement of absolution in the form of "I absolve you..." And of course, having written this, I look back at your question and realize that you phrase of 'grant' isn't drawing a distinction about the type of absolution/meaning of absolution from a priest, but you are using 'only' to refer to the priest/bishop alone being the ones who grant that forgiveness in that way. haha Sorry, I missed the point, but I'm leaving up my previous thoughts and not deleting them even though they miss the point of your question because I misunderstood the initial clause but that led me to say something useful anyway. Funny how the Holy Spirit works... I'll work out a proper answer in the next comment.

Now, getting to the heart, I believe of the question: If we have priests, then what is the role, if any, of the phrase "priesthood of all believers." One thing that we have to consider is that this particular phrase, that arises out of 1 Peter 2:9's reference to Christians as a royal priesthood, comes from Exodus 19:6 (I know you probably already know the references, but for the sake of clarity, I mention them). In that context, God is speaking of Israel after the Exodus from Egypt and calls them a 'kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' Sometimes, when we think of priests, we think of their work on behalf of others or towards others, and don't fully bring to mind what they are doing before God and toward God in a distinct way. The priest's role before God is to offer sacrifices and bring the people's petitions to God and thus petition God for his grace, to be set apart from everyone else for service, and to be fully committed before God to his service. God calls all of the nation of Israel to be a kingdom of priests, but then he establishes a particular priesthood to do very particular tasks that flow out of the general tasks of the priests. The levitical and Aaronic priests act in as sacrificing priests in a literal sense by actually offering animals, as well as grain, bread, fruit, wine, etc., on the altar to God and through that to intercede for the people. We see that this is the work of Christ for us now. He is the one who offered himself and presents himself now before the Father and intercedes directly on our behalf. So what did it mean for Israel to be a kingdom of priests then? I think that in the context of them then having a regular priesthood crafted out of their general priesthood, that Israel as a kingdom of priests was a group of people called to be committed to God through the covenant, obedient to his commands, making a sacrifice of their own selves through the commitment to the covenant, as well as being petitioners of their neighbors needs to God in heaven and making known his promises to their neighbors as a form of encouragement and assurance, while submitting to the priesthood of the Levites and high priests. And that brings us to 1 Peter's use. I think that St. Peter is considering the broad context here of the people of Israel as priests while having an official priesthood too. Israel as priests doesn't mean they each individually can walk up to the Temple courtyard and through a cow on the altar and sacrifice it before God, no there was a specially set apart group that did that. Israel's priesthood as a nation was a general priesthood of set apartness from the world with a calling to make known the promises of God through the good deeds and words about the covenant to others. Likewise, the general calling of the Christian is one of being in the royal priesthood with priesthood more broadly defined as a people who are set apart to God who offer their whole lives as a living sacrifice (Romans 12:1-3) and through that to make known the Gospel of Christ's forgiveness of sins through his sacrifice upon the cross and to thus through the promises of God offer forgiveness to their neighbors as they draw near to God in Christ. So in that sense, Christian's are a royal priesthood. It is a broad sense that allows for a narrow sense of priesthood as well, which is seen in the calling and ordination of bishops, priests, and deacons, who serve the people and lead the people to God that they might be partakers in the sacrifice that removes their sins. In our case, the narrow priesthood, does not offer a sacrifice to God anymore because Christ has accomplished that aspect, but the priesthood also intercedes for the people through Christ's intercession because they have been particularly set apart and called to dedicate their lives to God's people in a way that other Christians are not called to serve, though the other Christians are part of the general royal priesthood. So, I think that the priesthood of all believers does not negate having a group of clergy (which is not your question, but a totally different issue that some have), but also that having clergy who have apostolic authority, does not undercut the priesthood of all believers. It is ultimately about the broad and narrow understandings of how the Bible speaks of priesthood. The broad category is focused on all believers living a life of set-apartness-from-the-world, being living sacrifices, interceding on behalf of their neighbors, and making known the promises of God through the Gospel, which can include a sense of absolution through the declaration of the forgiveness of sins through Jesus for all who come to him (and when speaking one on one, the non-ordained Christian, can certainly declare an absolution because forgiveness is for all those who are penitent and confess their sins), but none-the-less, there is a unique sacramental absolution that comes through the bishops and priests to the people that Christ has ordained to be so. So the Anglican understanding of priesthood as an ordained group complements the concept of the priesthood of all believers and doesn't take way. They both help each other come more deeply to fruition in the life of the church and help the church to grow and continue to reach towards the ends of the earth. I hope that makes sense and doesn't make a hash of your question despite my initial misreading. haha

Very very true! I’ve been thinking that it took me about 3years to work through most of the Sunday collects and it may be time for me to start walking through them again to see how they strike me this go around.