วีดีโอ

@ kjorlaug1. So you believe the Bride of Christ need not have to receive the marital cleansing and anointing bath before receiving the Marriage Supper of the Lamb ?

@roddumlauf9241 ideally, I would say baptism would come before communion. But I have seen too many people for whom the sacraments were transformative into their following of Christ BEFORE their baptism.

The language of participation is the language of grace. If we are not to fence the table, then why does Paul make a point about some who drink their damnation? If we are to not see it as a “means of grace,” then what is it? If you are correct, then why do both the Catholic and Reformers deviate only in what happens on the table and not that it is a means of grace, leaving baptism as the door? I suppose you might quote certain anabaptist reformers, but they were a small group..

@@Revjonbeadle participation means very little if you can't share in the sacrament. I don't expect people to agree with me, but I will practice an open table because I feel it is not my place to refuse someone seeking Christ

@ You are not denying anyone anyone access to the table. Instead, you are calling them to repentance.

That is, I believe the Eastern Orthodox practice (though they also 'confirm' babies upon baptism) and possibly some Lutherans. There were - and maybe still are - some Anglican provinces that require confirmation first. However, this view has mostly fallen out of favor among Anglicans as more emphasis has been put on Baptism as complete entry into the covenant community. Roman Catholics maintain a kind of hybrid - "first communion" is not received until some years after baptism (unlike the East and most Anglicans and Methodists) but it is not delayed all the way until adolescent confirmation. So, obviously (for better or worse) there has been a variety of practices within the church on this point.

@@danielhixon8209 I am not Eastern Orthodox. I am an Anglican. 1662 Confirmation Office, Last Rubric "And there shall none be admitted to the holy Communion, until such time as he be confirmed, or be ready and desirous to be confirmed." "The Anglican Church in North America identifies the following seven elements as characteristic of the Anglican Way, and essential for membership:... 6. We receive The Book of Common Prayer as set forth by the Church of England in 1662, together with the Ordinal attached to the same, as a standard for Anglican doctrine and discipline, and, with the Books which preceded it, as the standard for the Anglican tradition of worship."

@ You are quite correct that the historic practice of Anglicanism was to require confirmation first. Meanwhile, Title II Canon 4 of the ACNA constitution only states that baptism is required and also specifies that young children may receive communion. This is, as I suggested, a change that has come about since the Liturgical renewal and Ecumenical movement of the 20th Century led to a lot of new scholarship/thinking on sacramental theology and practice. The consensus today is that baptism completes our initiation into the church, therefore it is sufficient for admission to the Table. But you are right to point out this is a departure from previous Anglican practice. This raises a tension that exists for all - especially 'conservative' - historic Protestant groups. On the one hand we teach that only Scripture is infallible, and no church document (like the 1662 Prayerbook or the 39 Articles - or the Augsburg Confession for Lutherans) is infallible and irreformable, but on the other hand those documents define our tradition in such a way that we are left wondering to what degree we can - through normal synodal processes and by established authority - change and reform their teaching (as when we accepted the Amendments to the 39 Articles) without ceasing to be Anglican (in our case). To put it another way, is this one of those issues that - as Article XXXIV states - the church has the authority to change the received traditions, or is this more central than that? The ACNA constitution has taken the former view. A related matter (which was not in view back in 1662) was Eucharistic hospitality toward other Christians who may come from traditions that do not practice confirmation (or Episcopal Confirmation). But your question does make me wonder to what extent that rubric was observed in the time of John Wesley. I made the case that anyone experiencing conversion at communion was most likely already baptized... but was he also confirmed? What was the normal "on the ground" practice 100 years after the 1662 book was issued?

@@danielhixon8209 The ACNA needs to sort out it's contradicting statements and decide where they are. It seems they want to claim the 1662 as being foundational but also be contradictory to it. I can't think of anything good that came of the Liturgical renewal and Ecumenical movement of the 20th Century. Roman Catholics stopped being Roman Catholic, Lutherans stopped being Lutheran, Anglicans stopped being Anglican &c. While I disagree with aspects of some of the broader Protestant reformers, e.g. Sola Fideism, Calvinism, Individualism, &c, if they were so wrong we needed to copy Rome again, or any other tradition, we should all go back to Rome, or join the correct tradition respectfully. Unless the tradition contradicts scripture, it should not be changed. That is the stance of the Anglican Reformation (and the Lutheran one as well), and while it has been done imperfectly, e.g. Anointing the sick being dropped in 1552 and not readded despite being in the 1549 and having Biblical commandment behind it, that should be the standard. I imagine that the practice would depend on whether one was in the colonies or in Britain. The "ready and delirious" part was supposed to be only for extreme need or distant places.

I have also had this experience in various churches (including Eastern Orthodox). Liturgy is supposed to be participatory by definition; it is "the work of the people."

I believe the RSV is out of print for that (but would be interested to find they've brought it back), but the New Revised Standard Version is still in print. I have an older edition myself.

Five hours, the article says 5 hours.

@@DiMacky24 That is a literal copy/paste. The article does say "two hours." Never mind that it thinks fasting can "sometimes" be 40 days. Lol. Regardless, it's pretty funny.

This is the way I currently lean, personally but it’s one of the first times I’ve seen it expressed. Do you know of any sources that share your perspective so I can read them?

And you can find Jesus in his father's house, the church he instituted and lasts until today.

Luke 2:35 "and a sword will pierce through your own soul also..." I completely understand why a parent in your shoes would feel a special connection to St. Mary, the Mother of Christ, our Lord and God. I will say that I, too, have found the Jesus Prayer to be very helpful. Actually spent a few minutes with it (and some Anglican Prayer beads) yesterday. As Jonah Saller (an Anglican seminarian at the Mere Catholicity TH-cam channel) has said: "It is the Gospel in the form of prayer."

Uhh... Patriarchy has nothing to do with it. Theology has everything to do with it and the truth.

I am not in the orthodox church. I probably agree with them on a significant number of doctrines. Am i in the universal church? That is to say if i agree with orthodox bible doctrine but disagree on say liturgy, icons etc, am i in the universal church?

johornbuckle5272 The "universal church" is not an abstract, invisible entity. It is concretely expressed in the visible, sacramental life of the Orthodox Church and it's continuity. The Orthodox Church understands itself as the one holy catholic and apostolic Church as professed and has yet to be fully compromised (like the west) in the Nicene Creed. Full membership in the Church is defined by communion in the doctrines the sacraments and the ecclesiastical life. Agreement on some doctrines !=(is not equal to) constitute full participation in the Church. The church wants you to enter into the fullness of its sacramental, liturgical, and communal life, not just to be intellectually alligned. This is where true unity with the universal Church is found, not just in belief (a protestant idea), but in participation.

​@@johornbuckle5272 I'm a Protestant (that is a "reformed catholic" - and an Anglican specifically) so, of course, I believe that if you are a baptized Christian you are most certainly part of the one holy catholic and apostolic church. One of the biggest differences between the East and Rome on the one side and the Reformational churches on the other is that we heirs of the Reformation do not equate the one universal church with a single ecclesiastical institution. So, the Roman church and the Eastern Churches... and the Ortiental... and the Syriac... each one of these claims to be THE one true church, leading to the absurd situation that one essentially has to have a Ph.D. in ancient history and languages to decide which "one true church" is the real one true church. The Reformation, on the other hand, takes a wider view of "catholicity" - that the word actually means what it originally meant: "universal." All baptized believers are part of the universal church. But the sad truth is that the community of Christ is outwardly divided (just as the kingdom of Israel became divided in the Old Testament). Something like "branch theory" - that the original one true Church is now actually divided into several branches that each are genuine continuations of that original church (but none simply IS that original church) - is simply more historically honest than any claims of institutional exclusivism. Now, I also argue that some churches and denominations express that catholicity and ancient faith more fully than others, but even the most imperfect or deficient church that still has the Bible and Baptism and the Lord's Prayer, etc. still has access to some of the "means of Grace" that God uses to share saving grace with his people. I do think, however, that having bishops and (along with them) the assurance of valid ordinations is so important that I would not want to join a church or denomination that lacks them - unless I had no other option.

@@danielhixon8209 ah, now that does help. I agree with you

No sorry friend one must be Baptiste in the orthodox church all other churches have split off from the Orthodox church. But go to one Russian, Greek, Serbian, or others. Just be mind of the heretical churchs like syrian, Ethiopian, and coptic May God bless you.

This is just nonsense and it hurts Christianity at large to retrospectively come up with myths like this to justify your own behavior. You are rooting your entire conversion in the grounds of a 12 year period that was ~900-1,500 miles away from the epicenter of the great schism. This is folly. Deconstruction and shame are leftist tools and Eastern Orthodoxy is just a right-coded expression of those tools.

Why do you say that the Celts were Orthodox?

@Alexander44665 A number of reasons. The entire Church was Orthodox, even Rome, until 1054. The church in the Isles, better called the Insular Church rather than the Celtic Church since the Celtic Church didn't only include Celts but also included Anglo-Saxons and various other Germanics, while in communion with Rome exercised her own authority and autocephaly and maintained her own customs and traditions not disunited from but distinct from Rome and this was the case until St. Augustine of Canterbury, the Council of Whitby, and the official conversion of the Anglo-Saxons to Christianity. Even Anglicans agree with this as they used the autonomy of the Insular Church to justify the English Church's Independence from Rome. On top of that, the way the church was organized in the Isles more mimiced the Eastern style of organization. It was conciliar, matters were determined by councils rather than a top down declaration, as was shown by the Council of Whitby, and oftentimes local abbots held more sway than bishops far off in the big cities. Which brings me to my third point, monasticism. Monasticism in the Isles also has a clear influence from the East. We have stories of Egyptian monks going up to Ireland seeking solitude and seclusion and their mark was left by the beehive shaped monastic cells which were made of cobble stone in the Isles but has a clear influence from the sandstone beehive cells of Egypt. On top of that, many cities were founded by people seeking holy hermits or monks in monasteries, which is why the abbots had so much influence as previously stated. The monastery was the center of the town for many ancient sites, which is quite a common phenomena in Orthodox history, especially in Russia. Monasticism was a very important part of the ancient Insular Church as it is for modern day Orthodoxy. It's interesting then that while borrowing from the independence of the Insular Church to justify their own church, the Anglicans would do away with monasticism, a component as vital to the Insular Church as her independence was. Then there were the Norman Invasions, condoned by the Pope because the Brits were accused of heresy, they weren't in line with Rome and the Pope didn't like that. The Norman Invasions would fully Latinize the Insular Church and give us the Irish Catholic Church and later the Anglican Church which we know today. Now when I say the Celtic Church was Orthodox, I do not mean that it was Eastern. That's very key. Rather the Celts, and the Anglo-Saxons by extension, had their own native Orthodoxy, a sort of "Western Orthodoxy" for lack of a better term. However it is also important to note that even tho the Insular Church was autonomous, it always had some level of influence from Rome and that the Anglo-Saxons when the kings became Christians chose to go the Roman way instead of the Celtic way and so they've been more heavily Latinized or Romanized than the Celts.

​@@Alexander44665everybody who is Roman Catholic was Orthodox Catholic before the great schism, including the Celts.

The Irish church was considered an autonomous Orthodox Church by the Eastern Orthodox. As it developed cos monasteries which is how EO tended to develop and be structured around

I think there is actually some truth to this critique. I believe the Anglican Reformers were right to both reform some medieval errors on the one side, but also resist the temptation to go "full Puritan" on the other side. Many of the reasons that I'm not a "non-sacramental" or "non-liturgical" evangelical is precisely because I believe there were some beginnings of modernist assumptions built into some of the more Puritan-Reformed theology that don't actually fit with a Biblical world-view; I mean things like individualism, skepticism towards God's sharing grace through physical means, etc. The more liturgical Protestant Traditions - especially Anglicans and Lutherans and (to a lesser degree) Methodists and Presbyterians have preserved (and in some cases, recovered) more the pre-modern Christian inheritance, and I believe this is absolutely crucial as the vestiges of Modernity are now collapsing all around us.

@danielhixon8209 As an ex-atheist I found the lack of doctrine in Anglicanism confusing. My local diocese is extremely liberal but I guess I could have "shopped around" for a particular church within the diocese that was more conservative, is that right? It seemed strange to me to convert to a church where I disagreed with the bishop so I found an English-speaking Eastern Orthodox church where I could just focus on becoming a Christian.

@@knightrider585 "Just focusing on becoming a Christian" is exactly where all of our priorities should be. I don't know where you live, so I cannot comment on your local (Anglican diocese), but I will say that Anglicanism world-wide is now undergoing a global "realignment" (you can even read about Anglican Realignment on wikipedia). As you have seen, there are many revisionist/unorthodox dioceses and bishops - particularly in Western Provinces like the Anglican Church of Canada, the Church of England, the Episcopal Church in the US, etc. However, there are MANY MORE traditional and orthodox dioceses and provinces globally, and their leaders are deliberately working - through organizations like GAFCON - to "sideline" the Revisionist dioceses and Provinces - which will whither over time if they do not repent. And there are still a few orthodox dioceses within the liberal Provinces. It will be a very slow process, but it is well underway. We already have more orthodox Provinces like the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) up and growing, plus various "Continuing Anglican Churches" (which are very traditional, and starting to talk more about greater unity with the Realignment groups) and in the coming years there will be well-organized, increasingly-united, and growing Anglican expressions "bearing the torch" of historic Anglicanism in every part of the English-speaking world.

​@@danielhixon8209 Yeah I am in Australia. I looked into the very small GAFCON-style split from the Anglican church here in Australia among the denominational options I when I was trying to work out what church to join. Ultimately I did not go that way.

I agree. Their ideas of the early church were wrong. And. Is those ideas are starting to grow bad fruits. As their assumptions were based off of what the Jews were doing in the 1500s and not on the 00s. Which as you said led to liberal and other wrong ideas mixing into the doctrines.

I like to say that just like brushing my teeth is a ritual AND it's good for my health, so also the traditional rhythms of liturgical prayer are both ritual AND life-giving.

Is Schuyler no longer selling them? If not then the only options I know of - apart from the Sovereign - are the Roman Catholic editions (CE and 2-CE - both of which have the Apocrypha) or maybe getting something in good shape off of Ebay or a second-hand dealer. Lots of mainline Protestant church libraries are stuffed with unused RSV's from the 70s - you might be able to find a church that would give you one.

@@danielhixon8209 The only one that I've been able to find is a full-yapp, but non-Apocrypha, edition on the Evangelical Bible website.

God bless you in your discernment.

I’ve already started using the KJV and NKJV now. I’m over it all. Money grabbing companies.

It is really sad how many of the once-great Historic/Mainline churches have tried trading off Biblical faithfulness for cultural relevance... and end up with neither.

A quick web search should yield explanations or calendars of when to use which colors. If you are asking where these particular stoles were purchased, it was (if I recall) Living Grace Catalog: www.livinggracecatalog.com/product/YC456-Avignon-Collection-Overlay-Stole

Yes, I'm doing well. Truth be told, since baby #4 came, I haven't had much time/energy for videos, and (even when I have) it's pretty hard (either at the home office or the church office) to get a space of quiet and uninterrupted time to film. But I've got some ideas, so more are definitely coming, God willing.

@ glory to God focus on your family and perish God will bring you back when its time