Prayer to the Saints, Infant Baptism, and Apostolic Succession: A Protestant Theological Affirmation
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ส.ค. 2024
- In this video I defend my view, and the historic view on Infant Baptism, the Lord's Supper, Baptismal Regeneration, Prayer to the Saints, Apostolic Succession, AND the doctrine of the Kingdom of Heaven all in one video where I canvas the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation, to justify these doctrine from Scripture alone.
ALSO, in the powerpoint I say "Jesus is Created" preempting any comments, I would like to clarify (and basically do in the video) that Jesus is Begotten, not Created and only assumes the Created Form of Adam as an "accident" of His Incarnation, but His "essence" is uncreated. I do say this in the video but just wanted to clarify.
i almost didn't want to be protestant anymore but the Anglican Liturgy gives you something to hold on to, which is why i remain traditional Anglican
I just started a new job that requires me to work weekends, so I’m not currently able to attend church, and I have to take my sabbaths on Mondays. I came here for a sort of “Sunday sermon” to kick off the new week with, and I certainly wasn’t disappointed! I’ve never encountered this kind of analysis on baptism and succession before. I really appreciate having a clearer understanding now of why the body and unity of the church is so important.
There are definitely better sermons on TH-cam, but thank you
@@Young_Anglican Well, I liked it, anyway! 😂
Very interesting video, and timing wise too. Just last night I opened up with my pentecostal friends about why they should reconsider the validity of paedobaptism, so this gives me many new points to research.
Wow. So many thoughts. This was a wild ride of a video. First thing that comes to mind: some of the ideas you shared here are starting to scratch beneath the surface for me of the problem of what we are doing here in this first life when there is a better life to come. Often, this life seems like a giant waste of time, and I wish it would just be over already so I can get on to bigger and better things that actually matter. But the stuff you said about creation...and you said a lot of stuff about creation in this video...I can't quite put it into words yet, but you've planted a seed in fertile soil, and I thank you.
I love the way you pharsed that last sentence.
Let us not despair. This life is a ground for us to learn and prepare for the next one.
Only skimming through your video to look at slides, I like it 👍 Looking forward to watching the whole thing later.
I'm Brazilian (learning about Anglicanism, although there is no Anglican Church in my area), so this video was extremely interesting. I'm an Evangelical, And I feel incredibly attracted to Anglicanism.
I would like to read more books and watch more videos about what you talked about here. (In fact, I'm curious to read about the Orthodox Church, as I read here in the comments that the vision It seems to be very similar to the Anglican view).
By the way, do you think there is a chance for the Orthodox Church and the (future) new Anglican communion outside the Church of England to have a dialogue?
I certainly hope so!
@@Young_Anglican One question: can you recommend some books and videos on Anglican Theology? (For me to go deeper)
Interesting perspective, especially for someone from a very low church background
Let's see what the 39 Articles Say about Prayers to the Saints:
XXII. OF PURGATORY
THE Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping, and Adoration, as well of Images as of Reliques, and also invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.
Unless I'm mistaken Anglican Aesthetics or Young Anglican has a video addressing how the 39 Articles where carefully worded to reform Romish doctrines, not to exclude the ideas altogether.
"The ROMISH doctrine concerning... invocation of saints" is specifically about invocation of saints in and of themselves, rather than asking for their intercession in prayer. Hence the addition of romish, and not just leaving it to "the doctrine of..."
@@etheretherether Yes, that has been used to attempt to wiggle out of what the Articles say. However, even if one decided to take that route, the homily on prayer clears things up.
@@Willwhite5809 I'm not anglican so I may be wrong, but are the 39 articles and homilies in the BCP considered infallible in Anglicanism?
I see you're point though. I could see the argument being made that "kinds of prayer" aren't being distinguished and that the homily on prayer clearly means a very specific kind of prayer. So for example, that homily says "solely pray unto God", there's three routes you can go:
1) The strictest reading that ALL prayer that is not to God is wrong. This would include using the word "pray" in it's archaic form (as in just to ask someone something). It would also exclude intercessory prayer among the living.
2) The broadest reading that only a certain kind of worshipful prayer to the Lord is to be reserved for the Lord. Like the Latria/Dulia distinction, but English lacks words like Latria and Dulia to make such a distinction. This would allow things like asking for both the church triumphant and church militant to pray for you, and would also allow the archaic use of the word pray in day-to-day speaking.
3) Somewhere in between the two, where we understand that the word pray in and of itself isn't wrong, and we understand intercessory prayer among the living, but not among the dead.
I see problems with all 3 interpretations tbh, and they all seem to involve approaching the homily and articles with a prebuilt theological framework. This is basically the same problem as the "call no man father" argument. Also, it seems like the articles and BCP still have as much need to be interpreted and discussed as scripture, which is maybe just an inherent problem with all written word.
@@etheretherether To arrive at the proper interpretation, I would look at how the reformers who produced the formularies defined prayer. In that case, it’s easy to determine that prayers should only be offered to God alone. Anglicans do not believe the formularies are infallible, some don’t even hold to them, but they should be approached according to their plain meaning, rather than by attempting to shoehorn in one’s pet doctrines.
@@Willwhite5809 Didn't Thomas Cranmer include litanies to the saints and archangels in his first few attempts at a BCP though?
I'm not sure how much of a role Cranmer had in the 39 articles though. Is Cranmer typically considered a reformer, or just an archbishop trying to unite the reformers and more catholic-ish members of the English church?
Edit: I should clarify that even in the reformers writings their might be room for discussion. If they argued in other places not to pray to saints based on the concept that all prayer should be direct at God alone, but simultaneously not banning the intercessory prayers of living saints, then they where being inconsistent. "All prayer of all kinds must be directed solely to God" and "Ask each other for prayer" are mutually exclusive statements. So my thought is more along the lines of " Is it possible that some of the reformers where just wrong, or at the very least logically inconsistent, on this point?"
My point wouldn't stand if they explicitly said something like "litanies to the saints are invalid because the dead can't hear us." I'm not that versed in the writings of the reformers though.
There's also the matter of more recent uncovering of catacombs that have "St Peter and St Paul pray for us" scratched in them in Greek from the first couple centuries.
"The Lord of Spirits" podcast, but from Anglican perspective basically. Really enjoyed this video, gave a lot to chew on, but I do wonder if there's issues with how this squares with the BCP and 39 articles.
Noah's flood story points the Salvatory roles of baptism
Good video👍 do you like artwork and drawings? You should do artwork of British Isles Saints
I'm 35 minutes into the video and I couldn't agree more. It is interesting that you are Anglican knowing that this view sounds incredibly Orthodox. I'd like to know what is it that draws you personally away from becoming Orthodox.
In all honesty not much. My major concern is the denial of Apostolic succession elsewhere. I would love to see reunion between Anglicans and Orthodox and it nearly occured in the 1980s in the Dublin Statement. The Anglicans were unfortunately entirely to blame for allowing the Episcopal church to ordain women, which was the sole sticking point that caused the Orthodox to withdraw. It could have been a glorious moment in the Body of Christ
@@Young_Anglican I Thank you for your answer. By the way, your video has helped me to affirm the way that the most holy trinity has revealed me towards orthodoxy. You really externalized this whole story I couldn't put down into words about the salvation of the material world in Christ.
On Apostolic succession, I'm still not well versed on the topic. At least my hope is that my spiritual father warned me not to develop moral superiority as an orthodox catechumen. "We know where the Holy Spirit Is, in the Orthodox Church, but not where He isn't" he said, citing a certain father that escapes my mind now.
Let us pray for union of the Body of Christ, and let us put aside our grudges to embrace us one another in truth.
May the Lord have mercy on us. God bless you.
God bless
@young_anglican thank you for your studies and sharing them with us I also as a Catholic pray we can all be united as one. Your Catholic brother Robert from Puerto Rico 🇵🇷
The decree of
Dositheus 1672, canons on Nicea
2 where they make unleavened bread a salvation issue and anathematizes all to hell who do not bow down and kiss icons. Oh yeah it’s the official position. Not the one the priest will tell you about.
Any book recommendations to read more on this? Great video!
After You Believe, and Surprised by Hope by N.T. Wright are good places to start. Lectures by Michael Heiser are all over TH-cam as well, as well as Seraphim Hamilton who is very good at explaining these concepts as well
Very interesting analysis. I believe that as Anglicans we should work to bring all apostolic churches into communion.
I failed to see any defense for invocation of the saints especially anything in anglican history or let alone scripture. You defended our anglican theology of the communion of Saints but didn't point to it in the book of common prayer?
These are some of the reasons why I joined the Anglican Church of Canada though I don’t recognize the pope
Based
I think it's a sin to not have children if your not infertile.
If your fertile. Have children.
I'm against priestly celibacy even
The Levites were themselves a race of priest.
If they went extinct from celibacy what'd you think would happen?
I have extremely high views of the sacraments.
I even go so far as to say the sacraments point to the trinity.
Baptism,
Prayer
And communion
All point to the trinity.
Can you please give me a strong argument for apostolic succession ?
John 20:23
Acts 8:11-17, note that Philip witnessed to and baptized the Samaritans, but he had not yet laid hands on them for the receiving of the Holy Spirit, instead waiting for the Apostles to arrive.
Acts 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how He said, John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized by the Holy Spirit. Ephesians 1:13-14. In whom ye also trusted, after ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, (First Corinthians 15:1-4) in whom also After ye believed, ye were sealed by that Holy Spirit of promise. Ephesians 4:30. And grieve not the Holy Spirit in whom ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. The rapture of the church to meet the Lord in the clouds. First Corinthians 15:51-53 and First Thessalonians 4:13-18. We are to comfort one another with these words. First Thessalonians 4:18.
John 3:16. For God so loved the world, that HE gave His only begotten Son, Jesus, that WHOSOEVER believeth in Him, should not perish, but HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE. John 3:17 For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. John 3:18. Believers are no longer condemned, but unbelievers are condemned already, because they have not believed on the name of the Son of God. John 6:47. God cannot lie. John 6:40. And this is the will of Him who sent me, that ALL that seeth the Son, and believeth on Him, may have everlasting life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
Can you show us the practices of prayer to the saints, prayer to Mary the Theotokos and veneration of icons in the apostles or the ante nicene fathers?
Argument from silence.
@@etheretherether not
If it is
Necessary for salvation. You just listen to what your told and don’t actually think. It was so important so integral but they never practiced it or spoke about it ? Yeah makes sense.
@@davidthenewtheologian7757 To answer your original question, there's several cases of archeological evidence from ante-nicene catacombs and prisons where prayers like "pray for us Peter" and "pray for us Paul" are scratched on the walls.
The ad-hominem wasn't appreciated. I never insulted your ability to think.
By your reasoning, we shouldn't believe the Trinity because it isn't discussed until later. If it was so integral, why wasn't it discussed until later? We can deduce though, that the reason the Trinity wasn't discussed wasn't because that opinion wasn't held, but was instead because there where no heresies that needed to be addressed yet. As heresy against the Trinity comes up, defining and defending the Trinity begins to be more of a thing.
I probably shouldn't assume that you are Trinitarian though, so it's only fair to ask and offer that route. Would you describe your position as holding both the Trinity and that Jesus was both fully man and fully God? If not, apologies for making that assumption and following that line of argument, although the basic defense of "that's an argument from silence" would still stand for the Trinity and nature of Christ as well, but that's another line of discussion.
@@davidthenewtheologian7757 Not really appreciating the ad-hominem attacks, or seeing how the encourage a Christian discussion. I never insulted you're ability or willingness to think.
The point of the "argument from silence" I threw out, is that the Trinity itself could be debunked using the same lines of reasoning. If it was so important and integral, why was it not discussed until later? The point is that it was assumed to be true, and therefor the Trinity wasn't discussed until there was a debate around and heresies that gave rise to needing to defend and define the Trinity doctrine.
To answer the initial question, there are instances of writing and graffiti in ancient catacombs and prisons with things like "st paul pray for us" from the first couple centuries AD.
Spoken like an Anglican Seraphim Hamilton.