What an awesome conversation, thank you Dr. Foskey and Dr. Boyce. Dr. Boyce has my curiosity piqued even more about conservative Anglicanism. Dr. Foskey, thank you for hosting such conversations, and your ministry; love your Church Soup and Denomination vids.
100% love hearing him on any stream. He's been fantastic for me learning about KJVO movement (helping me feel confident we needed to go) and I've learned so much about church history. PS The IFB/KJVO church I was attending. (found & began to attend during CV19 as the ONLY church under 1hr distance that DIDN'T close) NEVER did Communion for 2.5yrs!! It was one of the final straws, esp for my baptized daughters who I felt NEEDED to understand and participate in the Lords Supper.
The Apostles certainly practiced laying on of hands at ordination. No Anglican is going to claim that this is necessity for salvation, and there is a diversity of options regarding how important or necessary this Apostolic succession is. What is agreed on by all Anglicans is that the eoiscopate is worth preserving and operating under.
This guy earned a follower when it comes to textual criticism debates, but his discussion of the Apostolic succession was confusing to say the least. He spent over 20 minutes talking about Apostolic succession through the Arch Bishop of Canterbury all the way back to at least the early 7th century. Only to turn around and claim that there's essentially an Anglican version of the "trail of blood". Eye opening and going to have to read up a little bit more on some of the details from this conversation.
When discussing sucsession, Titus 3:9 always springs to mind. I place little value on which human vouches for you; how do your teachings alline with scripture? Great discussion!
I’ve had several editors reach out and offer, unfortunately I’m not in a place to pay anyone for services. I hope my editing isn’t too atrocious :-) I do try my best :-)
The only frustrating part of this was the lack of direct answer to the question regarding African churches and were they Roman or Anglican first. The answer was danced around when there is a direct response available. If a country was colonized by Britain before any other European powers they were Anglicans first. The race for Africa started well after the reformation and the interior of Africa wasn't really accessible to Europeans until the 1800s.
@@stephenboyce6996 "Danced around" may not have been the correct turn of phrase. At ~54:30 Dr. Foskey asks if the churches (referring to the churches in Africa) existed prior to the split with Rome. He basically restates the question at ~56:13. My only criticism is that you didn't answer as directly as you could have initially, which would still have allowed you to elaborate on the nature of the Anglican church in Africa. Don't misinterpret me, I'm very grateful that you came on and did the podcast, I learned a great deal. I just found that minor section a bit frustrating to listen to.
Since your guest mentioned something about it, I think you should have Dr. James White on exploring this idea that the book of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (spoiler alert, Dr White thinks it is ridiculous).
@@stephenboyce6996 if you are referring to Augustine as the early patristic evidence , Dr. White addressed that today in his dividing line and read Augustine in context and argued that Augustine is referring to the Septuagint (sp?) not to the new testament. I believe Dr. White also addressed the grammatical argument as well (I'll have to go back and listen to it again. But the biggest glaring issue is that, as I understand it is, we have no manuscript evidence of Matthew being written in Hebrew.
Very interesting conversation. I look forward to viewing his presentation on The Trail of Blood. He is somewhat mistaken about the ACNA needing to go to Africa for succession. The American and Canadian bishops who formed the ACNA were already in succession and the Reformed Episcopal Church, a founding sub-jurisdiction of the ACNA, had been around since 1873. The African connection was important because it linked the ACNA to the majority of the Anglican Communion (the orthodox part).
Also, the formation of the ACNA had nothing to do with Justin Welby's shortcomings -- he was a Cathedral Dean when the ACNA formed -- and, in fact, some prominent people in the ACNA held out high hopes when a supposed Evangelical became Archbishop. Those hopes were obviously dashed -- shoot, at this point I miss Rowan Williams.
@@TheDCinSC I wasn’t speaking of the rejection of him at their formation. This is very recent that the ACNA has made bold statements against him. The biggest issue was the Episcopal Church at the time of formation
Maybe could have clarified that better. Starting around that time not necessary written within 5 years. Like I said, I think the writing was written over a long period of time throughout the 2nd century
I do not recognize Roman Catholic as a Christian church because they have rejected so many basic tenants of Christianity including salvation by faith is Christ and his finished work on the cross. In essence, they have rejected Christ. How, therefore, can they be considered Christians?
@@ConversationswithaCalvinist Just made it to the end of this video and heard your explanation. Very clever. Whenever I read the Dinah story every year I read with one eye closed cause it’s a skin crawler. Yikes! Same with the Lot and his daughters story😱 hope you had a blessed vacation 🙏
I mean, who is unified? Not the Roman Catholics, certainly not the Baptists! Anglicans have an awful lot of internal theological differences, moreso than would be tolerated in many other denominations. For some people that's a minus, but for some people (like me) it's a feature and not a bug. Anglicanism is diverse because Christianity is diverse.
@@mmeeehhh I've been to various Anglican congregations where half the congregation didn't even believe Adam was a real person and another that couldn't agree on the number of necessary sacraments.
Are the gospels legends? Another point is that on that view you would have to regard the accounts of the Man as being legends. Now, as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the Gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing. They are not artistic enough to be legends. From an imaginative point of view they are clumsy, they don’t work up to things properly. Most of the life of Jesus is totally unknown to us, as is the life of anyone else who lived at that time, and no people building up a legend would allow that to be so. Apart from bits of the Platonic dialogues, there are no conversations that I know of in ancient literature like the Fourth Gospel. There is nothing, even in modern literature, until about a hundred years ago when the realistic novel came into existence. In the story of the woman taken in adultery we are told Christ bent down and scribbled in the dust with His finger. Nothing comes of this. No one has ever based any doctrine on it. And the art of inventing little irrelevant details to make an imaginary scene more convincing is a purely modern art. Surely the only explanation of this passage is that the thing really happened? The author put it in simply because he had seen it. C.S. Lewis, "What Are We to Make of Jesus Christ?" (1950)
I know it's been around for awhile but the intro still always puts a smile on my face.
Me too! Thanks!!!
What an awesome conversation, thank you Dr. Foskey and Dr. Boyce. Dr. Boyce has my curiosity piqued even more about conservative Anglicanism. Dr. Foskey, thank you for hosting such conversations, and your ministry; love your Church Soup and Denomination vids.
I always learn something listening to Stephen Boyce!
100% love hearing him on any stream. He's been fantastic for me learning about KJVO movement (helping me feel confident we needed to go) and I've learned so much about church history.
PS The IFB/KJVO church I was attending. (found & began to attend during CV19 as the ONLY church under 1hr distance that DIDN'T close) NEVER did Communion for 2.5yrs!! It was one of the final straws, esp for my baptized daughters who I felt NEEDED to understand and participate in the Lords Supper.
@@Naomi_OBthanks for the feedback. I’m glad I’ve been a help in your journey of learning 😊
Great episode
Enjoyed the interaction with Boyce
Thanks for this!
Where did Christ or the Apostles teach that an unbroken chain of apostle succession is necessary or mandatory?
The Apostles certainly practiced laying on of hands at ordination. No Anglican is going to claim that this is necessity for salvation, and there is a diversity of options regarding how important or necessary this Apostolic succession is. What is agreed on by all Anglicans is that the eoiscopate is worth preserving and operating under.
*opinions
Not options
😊 my church is just outside Greenville SC by like 1/2 a mile 👍
Awesome! Only part way through but already a great discussion! 🤠
This guy earned a follower when it comes to textual criticism debates, but his discussion of the Apostolic succession was confusing to say the least.
He spent over 20 minutes talking about Apostolic succession through the Arch Bishop of Canterbury all the way back to at least the early 7th century. Only to turn around and claim that there's essentially an Anglican version of the "trail of blood". Eye opening and going to have to read up a little bit more on some of the details from this conversation.
When discussing sucsession, Titus 3:9 always springs to mind. I place little value on which human vouches for you; how do your teachings alline with scripture? Great discussion!
I wish I could edit for you pastor Keith I’m good at editing 😂
I’ve had several editors reach out and offer, unfortunately I’m not in a place to pay anyone for services. I hope my editing isn’t too atrocious :-) I do try my best :-)
@@ConversationswithaCalvinist oh it’s amazing 🤩
If Anglicans play contemporary music in their worship service. How about Henry the eighth I am by Herman’s Hermits!!!
Does the tiny Bible come in the Scofield Reference Bible?
Hahaha 😂
The only frustrating part of this was the lack of direct answer to the question regarding African churches and were they Roman or Anglican first.
The answer was danced around when there is a direct response available. If a country was colonized by Britain before any other European powers they were Anglicans first. The race for Africa started well after the reformation and the interior of Africa wasn't really accessible to Europeans until the 1800s.
Danced around? I said their liturgy was that from England
@@stephenboyce6996 "Danced around" may not have been the correct turn of phrase. At ~54:30 Dr. Foskey asks if the churches (referring to the churches in Africa) existed prior to the split with Rome. He basically restates the question at ~56:13. My only criticism is that you didn't answer as directly as you could have initially, which would still have allowed you to elaborate on the nature of the Anglican church in Africa.
Don't misinterpret me, I'm very grateful that you came on and did the podcast, I learned a great deal. I just found that minor section a bit frustrating to listen to.
Historically, the Anglican Church has 100% accepted the filioque
Never said otherwise. I said we have the choice to include or exclude.
@@stephenboyce6996 Yes, but that is extremely recent and only in certain jurisdictions.
Since your guest mentioned something about it, I think you should have Dr. James White on exploring this idea that the book of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (spoiler alert, Dr White thinks it is ridiculous).
There’s very early patristic evidence for it and there’s also grammatical evidence for it.
@@stephenboyce6996 if you are referring to Augustine as the early patristic evidence , Dr. White addressed that today in his dividing line and read Augustine in context and argued that Augustine is referring to the Septuagint (sp?) not to the new testament. I believe Dr. White also addressed the grammatical argument as well (I'll have to go back and listen to it again. But the biggest glaring issue is that, as I understand it is, we have no manuscript evidence of Matthew being written in Hebrew.
Very interesting conversation. I look forward to viewing his presentation on The Trail of Blood.
He is somewhat mistaken about the ACNA needing to go to Africa for succession. The American and Canadian bishops who formed the ACNA were already in succession and the Reformed Episcopal Church, a founding sub-jurisdiction of the ACNA, had been around since 1873. The African connection was important because it linked the ACNA to the majority of the Anglican Communion (the orthodox part).
Yes, I should have clarified that point to be more specific. Links to the trail of blood series are in the original description
Also, the formation of the ACNA had nothing to do with Justin Welby's shortcomings -- he was a Cathedral Dean when the ACNA formed -- and, in fact, some prominent people in the ACNA held out high hopes when a supposed Evangelical became Archbishop. Those hopes were obviously dashed -- shoot, at this point I miss Rowan Williams.
@@TheDCinSC I wasn’t speaking of the rejection of him at their formation. This is very recent that the ACNA has made bold statements against him. The biggest issue was the Episcopal Church at the time of formation
@@stephenboyce6996 Correct.
Like Roger Williams, John Smyth did not rest in one system for long.
Gospel of Thomas around AD 110 to AD 115. I'd be curious how he can come to such small time span. Interesting conversation.
Maybe could have clarified that better. Starting around that time not necessary written within 5 years. Like I said, I think the writing was written over a long period of time throughout the 2nd century
Thanks brother for the content 😊
My pleasure
Just remember presbyteral succession is historically accepted
I do not recognize Roman Catholic as a Christian church because they have rejected so many basic tenants of Christianity including salvation by faith is Christ and his finished work on the cross. In essence, they have rejected Christ. How, therefore, can they be considered Christians?
If you interviewed a bunch of aging politicians, would you call it the Botox dialogues?
Church isn't built by 'hand on head' .
Just realized your posters on the wall look like Christian movies? Are they real movies?
They are fake posters I made with Christian themes based on real movie posters.
@@ConversationswithaCalvinist Just made it to the end of this video and heard your explanation. Very clever. Whenever I read the Dinah story every year I read with one eye closed cause it’s a skin crawler. Yikes! Same with the Lot and his daughters story😱 hope you had a blessed vacation 🙏
The problem with anglicanism is they are not unified in their confessions. They say they are but that's only on paper.
I mean, who is unified? Not the Roman Catholics, certainly not the Baptists! Anglicans have an awful lot of internal theological differences, moreso than would be tolerated in many other denominations. For some people that's a minus, but for some people (like me) it's a feature and not a bug. Anglicanism is diverse because Christianity is diverse.
@@mmeeehhh I've been to various Anglican congregations where half the congregation didn't even believe Adam was a real person and another that couldn't agree on the number of necessary sacraments.
Great talk! Anglecan seems like Catholic light to me.
Are the gospels legends?
Another point is that on that view you would have to regard the accounts of the Man as being legends. Now, as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the Gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing. They are not artistic enough to be legends. From an imaginative point of view they are clumsy, they don’t work up to things properly. Most of the life of Jesus is totally unknown to us, as is the life of anyone else who lived at that time, and no people building up a legend would allow that to be so. Apart from bits of the Platonic dialogues, there are no conversations that I know of in ancient literature like the Fourth Gospel. There is nothing, even in modern literature, until about a hundred years ago when the realistic novel came into existence. In the story of the woman taken in adultery we are told Christ bent down and scribbled in the dust with His finger. Nothing comes of this. No one has ever based any doctrine on it. And the art of inventing little irrelevant details to make an imaginary scene more convincing is a purely modern art. Surely the only explanation of this passage is that the thing really happened? The author put it in simply because he had seen it.
C.S. Lewis, "What Are We to Make of Jesus Christ?" (1950)