วีดีโอ

Anglicanism is a squarely reformed Protestant denomination. It is not a weigh station to Rome. Her doctrines and worship were developed in opposition to the excesses of Medieval Romanism. To truly be Anglican is to be Protestant and she contains the fullness of the faith. No need to seek anything more.

The Anglican Church is the largest Protestant denomination in the world with over 85 million adherents. It is just as wide and diverse as the Roman Church. King Henry was not involved in doctrinal decisions, is not commemorated in the church calendar, and the Anglican church condemns divorce. We seek to spread the Gospel, preach God's Word, administer the sacraments, and bless people with the love of God. I love my Catholic brothers and sisters and I would encourage you to get to know some Anglicans in person before making a sweeping condemnation of 85 million Christians.

Certainly not. I am a Protestant for principled reasons, I strongly believe the Reformers were correct. I have already studied Orthodoxy and the Orthodox hold to dogmas I simply cannot accept like praying to Saints and their view of salvation.

1. Your use of the word "substance" already makes this a loaded question. I don't think John was thinking in terms of substances or accidents when he was writing this passage. Those are categories in Greek philosophy, not Hebrew Theology. So I am not going to answer what kind of substance because I don't think the substance changes. 2. Both Roman Catholics and Historic Protestants (Anglicans included) believe that we need to feed on Christ as it says in this passage because it was the body and blood of Christ that hung upon the cross and atoned for our sins. The disagreement is regarding the means of feeding. 3. This passage in John is not a reference to the Eucharist but the Eucharist is referring to this teaching in John. 4. Transubstantiation is overly specific in describing the mechanism by which we receive the grace of Christ's Resurrection body and blood. It also violates the principles of Aristotelian philosophy because Aristotle taught that it was not possible to divide a substance from its accident. If the substance is destroyed so is the accident. Aquinas answered this by saying God can do as he pleases and work a miracle which brings me to my next point. 5. I agreed with Aquinas that God is not confined by human limitations so why is feeding on Christ in our hearts by faith by the power of the Holy Spirit not a sufficient way to explain how we feed on Christ? The Holy Spirit can fold time and space and ascend us to the risen Christ at the right hand of the Father and in some mystical way we are feeding on him and partaking in the body of Christ? Not with our teeth but with our hearts. 6. Finally, Transubstantiation over throws the nature of a Sacrament. A sacrament is a visible sign of invisible grace. If the sign becomes the thing signified it is no longer a sacrament but simply Jesus himself.

So like I already said I reject the use of the term substance because I don't believe in Transubstantiation. You can see my explanation above. Have a great day!

I'm so glad to hear you have returned to the faith and that you are allowing God to stretch you! Yes, the truth is non-denomonational churches are almost always Baptist because they don't baptize infants and they don't have bishops and they don't believe in sacraments just ordinances. I would challenge you on one thing: check out CS Lewis' book "Miracles". He argues for the existence of miracles and holds that the Resurrection of Jesus is the central miracle. If God can raise a man from the dead it makes things like the flood or creation more plausible. God bless!

This doesn't really hold water because how would we even define the greatest of all toilets? What would it's attributes be? Is it a necessary or contingent being? The reason Platonic philosophy can't answer this one is because each god has different attributes and weaknesses. None of them are the greatest being alone

@@AscensionMcKinney You just moved the goalposts on me for applying the Ontological Argument. The premises of the argument state that if a greatest thing can be conceived of, it must exist in reality. According to the Ontological Argument, if I can conceive of a 1000 foot tall golden toilet encrusted with precious gemstones as the greatest of all toilets, the fact that I can conceive of it means it, or something greater, MUST exist. That’s the logic you’re using. Even if I grant the Ontological Argument, Neoplatonism deals with it in the form of the One, which is the sum total of all being. I would argue that qualifies as pretty great. From the way you described the beliefs of Polytheism, it doesn’t sound like you actually understand the theology of polytheism. Our religion is not our Myths, we are not (generally) mythic literalists, unlike many Christians who feel that they must take their texts literally in order for the text to have any theological value.

@kblackbeard6 no goal post has been moved. The Ontological argument is about the greatest conceivable being. You then say "the greatest conceivable toilet" which has specific properties. The greatest being would not be a toilet. You also still have to deal with the poly in Polytheism. If you are saying your may gods are actually just one God then you have to deal with how exactly they are many and yet one. The Trinity is three persons in one being all sharing the same substance, that's monotheism. But to polytheistic you'd have to say that each god is its own being.

@ The trinity is incoherent. If three persons are sharing one being, or one being is in three persons, you have either modalism or partialism, either of which is heresy. To explain further, if you say that the father son and Holy Spirit are each god individually, then you have polytheism. If you say that each are not god individually, but as a whole they are god, then you have partialism. If you say that they don’t come together like ultron to make god, but they are like aspects of god, or forms of god, then you have modalism. Attacking the Ontological Argument in the way that I have isn’t new, it’s been done in philosophy for a long time. You are having to define what you mean by the greatest conceivable being no differently than the greatest toilet. Gaunilo of Marmoutiers is the first recorded critic in the same vein as I have made, and he used “the Greatest Island” as his counter, and it does the same thing. The point is that just because you can imagine a thing does not mean that it exists. The Greatest Conceivable Horse would never be tired, never need to eat, never die, and would be able to travel any distance in an instant while pulling any load. Now that I have imagined and defined the greatest horse, the next step in the argument you are using is that the thing I have conceived MUST exist. Does it? You are STILL failing to understand Polytheism under Neoplatonism. It isn’t Monotheism, and the One is not a god. It is pure being, impersonal and non acting. The things that Emanate from the one exist separate and distinct from each other, but share in existence within the One.

th-cam.com/video/KCm164IT1ik/w-d-xo.htmlsi=SHlYh3LGkqOqWI7-

I'm sorry to hear that. I always tell people that just like any denomination your experience will vary depending on the actual local church you're at. However, I want to be clear that the Episcopal Church is not what I am part of or talk about. The Episcopal Church is "Anglican" but many people left the Episcopal Church during covid because of the extreme response from the home office.

What do u mean by the “overall response from my local Anglican Church”if you don’t mind pls??

I did a whole video on this but no is the short answer. Henry VIII died a Roman Catholic. His annulment simply provided the political background that allowed Protestants to reform the Church of England in peace. He contributed nothing to our liturgy or doctrine.

@ He changed the lords prayer. And he did not died as a roman catholic. The reformation was not peaceful either. The last Tudor monarch, Mary I was right about the protestants.

@@Ragnar-l5w theologically he was Roman Catholic his whole life. Most of the heavy lifting was done before Mary but Mary actually caused England to be more sympathetic to the Protestants. She was widely hated and I rebuke you for suggesting it was the right thing to murder and burn Protestants. What a nasty and horrible thing to say. I don't agree with the Roman Church but I want nothing but God's best for you. I hope all of you live in peace and prosperity. I would hope you'd take the message of the Gospel to heart and want the same for us.

Most Anglicans I know, at least in the ACNA, hold to some form of this. The idea that God will save us by his sovereign grace is pretty universal. We certainly don't believe you can sin your way out of your salvation.

Love it! We also find those very attractive. There is something settling about having a bishop instead of rule by democracy

@Chris-wf6km the Anglican Church has valid sacraments

@Chris-wf6km yes I have read the church fathers but I'm not a patristic scholar and I'm assuming you aren't either. The head of Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary is an actual patrsitics scholar and he's a Baptist. He does believe in real presence but not Transubstantiation and he finds nothing in the fathers that suggests Transubstantiation is the official universal teaching of the early church. In fact John Jewel in his "Apology for the Church of England" (in this context apology means a defense) makes the argument that the Reformers were returning to the teachings of the Fathers. Again we agree we feed on Christ we disagree on the means by how that happens. Have a great day!

@Chris-wf6km Anglicans have two Sacraments just like all Protestants do

@Chris-wf6km I don't agree with Justin Martyr, he's not God. Nor is his authority on the same level as Scripture. I don't believe in Transubstantiation. Have a great day.

Historically and theologically this comment does not make any sense.

You know what else doesn’t make historical or theological sense? Condoning what God calls an abomination. It’s evil, and you must repent of approving of such evils or you will face the wrath of the living God.

@@OldFarmCraftyou're going to need to be more specific. We are not in Communion with the Episcopal Church or the Church of England because we remain faithful to the Bible and God's teaching on marriage and the human body

​@@AscensionMcKinney But you are in Communion with Anglicans in the Global South.

@cyberneticqualanaut7207 correct

Yes you can. There is nothing inherent in Dispensationalism that goes against anything in the Prayer Book or Articles of Religion. Many of the first Dispensationalists were Anglican clergy, most notably H. Griffith Thomas who cofounded Dallas Theological Seminary.

@@AscensionMcKinney Wow! I never knew that! How interesting! So, for example, the dispensationalism of the late Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, the founder of DTS, I could hold to his systematic of dispensationalism (he was the protege of Cyrus Scofield) and be ordained as a priest?

At the end of the day the bishop decides who gets ordained and there are some who might be antagonistic to Dispensationalism. Mine are not even if they do not hold my convictions about the Millennium.

The way I was able to come to terms with this was to understand that baptism is not primarily a profession of faith. In all the verses about baptism it talks about regeneration, burial with Christ, being born again, etc. It does not explicitly say that baptism *is* your profession of faith. We also see in Scripture people receiving the Holy Spirit before, during, and after baptism. The children of Christians are defacto members of the visible Church and Paul calls them holy in I Corinthians 7:14. We do confirmation which is a public profession of faith once someone has come to a mature understanding of their faith post baptism. We still believe we are saved by faith but baptism is first and foremost a promise God makes to the person baptized not a profession of their faith. We also see that God wanted Jewish boys to be circumcised making them members of the physical Covenant community without their consent or knowledge--simply because their parents are Jewish. I am not saying that we spiritualize the Old Testament and say that all the fulfillment of the OT promises are realized in the Church by a spiritual means but what I am saying is if we are to say that children cannot receive a covenant sign from God then we have issues saying it acceptable to circumcise babies. The faith is the faith of the parents who take on the task to raise the child in the way he or she should go. At the end of the day, the way Anglicans raise their kids and the way Baptists raise their kids is almost identical.

Baptism is like OT circumcision - becoming part of the covenant community

The kind of fasting Jesus did could probably be considered miraculous. The Spirit clearly sustained him through very strict discipline. Early Christians ate almost nothing during the week during Lent. They would usually only eat vegetables and maybe some fish. Lots of soup! Foods also spoiled faster back then so they'd literally get rid of the food before Lent started (the origin of Mardi Gras or Fat Tuesday). They'd always break fast on Sundays because Sundays are feast days and you're not supposed to fast on a Sunday. Depending on the time and place you look at, fasting rules were either stricter or looser. For Anglicans we are definitely not very strict with Lent. We emphasize prayer and encourage a general increase in Spiritual disciplines with a special emphasis on some form of fasting whether it be fasting from meat, sweets, alcohol, or something else like that.

@AscensionMcKinney that's interesting. I'd not thought about all of that, but had been wondering on what the old traditions may have been. Maybe it's not a coincidence that now there is science to support periodic fasting as being potentially beneficial for health and longevity. It's possible that some of these teachings and traditions are passing down some ancient or holy knowledge, indirectly Thank you for sharing your knowledge! I'm honored to have your thoughtful response.

Of course, I'll just add that yes there are some health benefits to fasting but fasting for as long as Jesus did is probably a net negative on your health. The primary purpose of Christian fasting is to suppress your passions. It's a great tool to use if you are struggling with lust for example. It should always be coupled with prayer because the point is to rely on the Holy Spirit and not your own strength. Thanks for your comments!

Thanks! Most priests I know immerse people so long as they are old enough to hold their breath.

@@AscensionMcKinneydo you baptize babies as well? Newer Anglican, ex reformed baptist!

@briannalipham4402 yes we do but it's a little different than the Roman Catholic view

Yes but one day we will literally take on the glorified body just as Christ did at his Resurrection

To live is Christ and to die is gain. In this world you will have trouble, but take heart, I have overcome the world.

@ all I was saying is that christs crucifixion was brutal, and that’s one of the reasons his sacrifice is so great. I mean imagine being dehydrated and starved for days, and they put salt in your wounds and vinegar in your mouth. And then leave you there to die slowly.

It's not the most persuasive argument but it is sound the conclusion does follow logically from the premises. That's why I think it could be better used to defend monotheism as opposed to polytheism.

@@AscensionMcKinneyis it not possible that there is an all powerful malevolent god? Why are we assuming perfection has to prefer humanity? It is possible that unicorns exist. It’s possible that the unicorn god exists, Therefore unicorn god exists.

th-cam.com/video/KCm164IT1ik/w-d-xo.htmlsi=SHlYh3LGkqOqWI7-

Like I said in the video, I think Baptists are great. Being a Baptist is a good way to be a Christian. However, I was in really good Baptist schools and churches so I saw the best of the best. The Baptist movement started as a reaction to Anglicanism. So things like a memorial view of the Lord's Supper, calling the Sacraments ordinances and not believing they are means of grace, believing that bishop and presbyter are the same office, a strong free church instinct are all baked into the cake. This desire to rewrite the script and say "no no that was never us from the beginning" is most likely a response to people gaining more interest in historic sacramental Theology. Trust me, I saw the very best of the Baptist world and I think many commentors did too.

@@AscensionMcKinneyThis Isn’t true. The baptists were a reaction against infant baptism during the reformation. Originally it was the anabaptists and they were brutally persecuted too. Even martyred for it. It had nothing to do with anglicanism. Seems like you only have given yourself the excuse that you “saw the very best.” Maybe you did, but you didn’t learn much

@@ScribeAlicious the original Baptists were literally Anglican priests who didn't want to baptize babies anymore.

@AscensionMcKinney Baptist here who wish's to recover traditional Baptists sacramental views. I would recommend to everyone reading the Baptists confessions written in the 1600's, namely The Standard Confession 1660, Smyths Confession 1610, Helwys Confession 1611, The Orthodox Creed 1679, and if you are more persuaded by the Calvinists, the London Baptist Confession 1689. Also the Writings of Thomas Grantham such as Christianismus Primitivus are great for apologetics and justifications for Baptist beliefs. Also Baptists did come from the English reformation, not the Anabaptists, however it is very clear in early Baptists writings that A) We affirm Holy Sacraments and Holy Ordinances, not just simple bare signs and B) We do believe in a spiritual real presence in the Lords Supper. I hope this helps illustrate how far modern Baptists have gone from there roots. God Bless!

@@AscensionMcKinneycheck out the writings of Dr. Michael A.G. Haykin and Dr. Gavin Ortlund. By going through Baptist church history, yhey demonstrate that the Particular Baptists viewed the ordinances/sacraments as means of grace. They believed, for example, in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist in the same way that Anglicans do (Calvinism’s spiritual presence).

Thanks for your comment! I think my remark was more to say that the 95 theses are to Lutherans what the 39 Articles are to Anglicans. The difference would be the articles are part of our formularies. But both documents outlined where the groups departed from the Roman church.

It is true my faith was enriched but since the target audience is usually worried about compromising on biblical truth we titled it as such. You don't have to make compromises to make the move.

My husband and I both grew up Assemblies of God. In fact, my husband’s father and two brothers are AG pastors. About 30 years ago, my husband moved his ordination from Assemblies into the United Methodist Church. It was a good move for us as it brought us closer to where we are now, which is Anglicanism. And about 10 years ago, we started worshiping at an Anglican church as my husband had “retired“ from being a UMC pastor (Bishop was in a same-sex relationship) (He took early retirement). Since he did his PhD in liturgical studies this was an opportunity to pursue a sacramental church. We found an Anglican church plant where we were living, began attending, and fell in love with the beautiful liturgy, the wonderful Anglican hymnody, and the Daily Office. He is now an Anglican rector, we have 4-year old parish, and it is growing quickly with Christians from evangelical churches who are wanting more. we have often said that we wish we would’ve found the Anglican tradition when we were in our 30s and not in our 60s!

Thanks for your comment! You have pointed out another important issue for me with Baptist theology and that is the issue of "the one holy, catholic, and apostolic church". I am not certain Baptists can really say they believe such a thing exists apart from the visible church. We would also agree that the visible church is where the Word is preached and the Sacraments are administered. One point of clarification, you used the word Sacrament and that's also not something Baptists believe in. If you go back to the London Confession it says this, "Baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in his church to the end of the world." Baptism and Communion are Ordinances not Sacraments and calling them Sacraments or viewing them as a means of grace would be a move back towards Anglicanism not historic Baptist theology. Yes, the Baptist movement is bigger than the SBC but the Anglican Communion is still the largest Protestant group on planet earth :)

@@AscensionMcKinney How kind of you to respond brother. I appreciate your comments very much. I must respectfully disagree with your assertion that Baptists don’t believe in sacraments. Southern Baptists may not believe in sacraments or have a sacramental understanding but clearly other Baptists have and do. I consider my Southern Baptist friends to be brothers in Christ but the truth is that they have departed from historic Baptist tradition in many ways. It is not a move toward Anglicanism as much as I respect that tradition. It is a move toward the early and historic Baptist tradition. I know Reformed Baptist pastors who use the term sacraments (and not because they want to be Anglicans by the way)and one wrote a book the real presence in the Eucharist. Reformed Baptists see the sacraments as a means of sanctifying Grace (as does the Reformed tradition in general). I have done the research. You can trust me in this. Please see an excerpt from English Pastor the Rev’d Hercules Collins’ 17th century catechism. Sometimes referred to as the Baptist Orthodox catechism. Collins (and other Baptist leaders) not only used the word sacrament but had a sacramental theology. He believed like all Reformed that in the Eucharist you partake of Christ’s body and blood by faith in your heart. Not corporeally but spiritually (as do some Anglicans believe). He also advocated use of the ecumenical creeds: From the Baptist Orthodox Catechism: Lesson 25, The Sacraments. (Q. 65-68). It is by faith alone that we share in Christ and all his blessings: where then does that faith come from? Answer: The Holy Spirit produces it in our hearts (a) by the preaching of the holy gospel, (b) and confirms it through our use of the holy sacraments. Please see excerpt from the Baptist catechism written by the Rev’d Benjamin Keach to accompany the London Baptist Confession of 1689. on the visible and invisible church. You seemed to suggest Baptists don’t believe in the universal or catholic church in both a visible and invisible form or that their theology prevents them from believing in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church. I categorically reject that. I can provide early Baptist writings to support my case if you want. Baptists have subscribed to the Nicene creed for centuries. Be careful not to judge all Baptists through the lense of the Southern Baptist Convention. See excerpt from Baptist catechism if 1689: Q. 105. What is the visible church? A. The visible church is the organized society of professing believers, in all ages and places, wherein the Gospel is truly preached and the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper rightly administered. Question 106. What is the invisible church? A. The invisible church is the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one under Christ the head. BTW early Baptist writings extend way beyond the London Baptist Confession. It is not the only resource for early Baptist writings. BTW, there is no way an Anglican Can be dispensational. Their theology won’t allow it. Just kidding! 😉

@@AscensionMcKinney excerpt from the Baptist theological formulary of 1679 known as the Orthodox Creed written by English Baptist pastor Thomas Monck. XXIX. Article. Of the Invisible Catholic Church of Christ. THere is one holy Catholic Church, consisting of, or made up of the whole number of the Elect; that have been, are, or shall be gathered, in one Body under Christ, the only Head thereof: Which Church is gathered by Special Grace, and the Powerful and Internal Work of the Spirit; and are effectually united unto Christ their Head, and can never fall away. XXX. Article. Of the Catholic Church as Visible. NEvertheless, we believe the Visible Church of Christ on Earth, is made up of several distinct Congregations, which make up that one Catholic Church, or Mystical Body of Christ. And the Marks by which She is known to be the true Spouse of Christ, are these, viz. Where the Word of God is rightly Preached, and the Sacraments truly Administred, according to Christ’s Institution, and the Practice of the Primitive Church; having Discipline and Government duly Executed by Ministers or Pastors of God’s Appointing, and the Churches Election, that is a true constituted Church: to which Church (and not elsewhere) all Persons that seek for Eternal Life, should gladly joyn themselves. And although there may be many Errors in such a Visible Church, or Congregations, they being not Infallible, yet those Errors being not Fundamental, and the Church in the major, or Governing part, being not Guilty, she is not thereby unchurched; nevertheless She ought to detect those Errors, and to Reform, according to God’s holy Word, and from such Visible Church, or Congregations, no Man ought by any pretence whatever, schismatically to separate. See this excerpt from the introduction to the Orthodox Catechism written by English Baptist Pastor Hercules: “I have proposed three creeds to your consideration, which ought thoroughly to be believed and embraced by all those that would be accounted Christians, viz. the Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed, and the Creed commonly called the Apostles. The last of which contains the sum of the Gospel.”

@@AscensionMcKinney Please read the book AMIDST US OUR BELOVED STANDS by Michael A.G. Haykin. He is the top professor of church history at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. You’ll be surprised by how catholic his teachings are. Reformed/Particular Baptists have the exact same view of the sacrament/ordinance of the Lord’s Supper as Anglicans do (Spiritual Presence and a means of grace). I also recommend BAPTISTS AND THE CHRISTIAN TRADITION by Emerson, Morgan, and Stamps.

Indeed, Reformed Baptists, especially those around the writing of the London Baptist Confessions, put an emphasis on being in continuity with the one holy apostolic church, which was why they follow the Westminster for a majority of the 1689. Historically, Baptists (both particular and general) were much closer to the Reformed Protestants save for infant baptism and church government. It is truly a shame that Baptists today have largely forgotten and rejected their heritage as being Protestant and seeing themselves disagreeing on one secondary point as opposed to being someting completely different in opposition

Why didn’t he become one then?

that one TV interview old Billy did, painted him as a Universalist, very sad and dissapointing, it certainly tarnished his legacy, in the minds of many, I would think

Many people on their death beds have said similar things like they wish they had become Catholic or orthodox or something else. Means nothing. I don’t know why everyone likes Billy Graham so much he preached a false gospel, his whole life. He was a good man though I’ll give him that.

@@Bop10899exactly hmm 🤔

The ACNA does not ordain people. We are a province with diocese each with its own bishop who ordains. Some ordain women some do not. Regardless of a bishop's view on the issue fewer and fewer women are interested in ordination and the younger bishops are mostly against it.

I don't think I made the contention that the bishops and priests approved of his behavior... But he was the king. I think it's easy for us to look back on the past and act like we would have done things different or perfectly. And to be clear Thomas Cromwell was primarily the one who led initiatives like selling the land belonging to monasteries. Cranmer did the Theology whole Cromwell did the politics. He was eventually beheaded by Henry though

Henry was a pig. Correct. That's sort of the point of the video. His actions formed the political backdrop of the English Reformation but Cranmer and Hooker got their cues from the Continental Reformers. Henry is not commemorated in the Anglican calendar and he wrote no part of the liturgy. The actual substance of what people call Anglicanism was not a product of Henry. He remained theologically Roman Catholic until his death. And it is actually not certain whether Catherine was a virign or not. She claimed she was in order to defeat the case for annulment while Henry claimed taking his brother's wife was unbiblical and was thus not a marriage. It's he said she said at this point. But my main thesis is that one cannot simply say "Henry did this so Anglicanism is bad". Anglicanism should be judged on the basis of Scripture.

The Episcopal Church is an apostate liberal denomination, better join the ACNA or one of the Continuing Anglican churches such as the ACC if you lean more into Anglo-Catholicism.

Thank you so much for your kind words!

Faith is trusting in something true.

I believe what I said in the video is that I believe it is our highest authority *and* that is inerrant. This is both a response to Baptists who come into Anglicanism and then immediately take a weaker view of Scripture like infallibility and Roman Catholics who hold the pope and tradition on par with Scripture. We do have other authorities as Christians but what I'm espousing is not prima Scriptura because I believe scripture is the Norma normata non normata (the norming norm that cannot be normed). It stands alone as our highest authority.

@@AscensionMcKinney I'm going to be honest, I have no idea what you just said, but again Sola scriptura, is not to believe that scripture is the highest authority, it is that the scripture is the soul authority by which men are to live.

@@AscensionMcKinney solo is there for a reason, scripture alone is the authority by which men are to live

Scripture contains all things necessary for salvation. Scripture is our only source of doctrine. Yes, it stands alone in that position. We do not create doctrine from tradition. We do not create doctrine from bishops or popes. But Christians have other lower authorities in our lives like bishops, leaders, parents, etc. When one of those leaders contradicts Scripture we go with Scripture because all of us are held to Scripture.

@@AscensionMcKinney again, I'm not disagreeing with you but again that is not sola scriptural. You said in your video that Catholics believe the Bible is infallible, and nobody is arguing against that but again that is not sola scriptural

I'm very sorry to hear this. The Gospel is the message that God entered this world to save it. He too suffered in human form right along side us. And he died and rose again to begin his work of healing this world. He is not being slow to do this but is instead being patient in order that everyone who will be saved will be saved. I encourage you to watch the full video where I deal with the problem of Evil. Also, I've never heard someone say Adam married his sister. This is not what the Bible teaches.