Why I Will No Longer Defend "Protestantism"
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 ก.ย. 2024
- Something all Protestants need to take to heart.
Marcus Williams' video: • Conservative Reformati...
First Ecclesialism stream: • Ecclesialism - A Defin...
Second Ecclesialism stream: • Ecclesialism - A Critique
~~~
Subscribe to the main channel: / theotherpaul
My official website & blog: www.theotherpa...
Follow me on Gab: gab.com/Paulos
Become a financial supporter: www.subscribes...
Join the official Discord server (The Theocrat Lounge): / discord
Listen to streams in Podcast Format: anchor.fm/the-...
Follow my social media & consider supporting my ministry in other ways. All links are here: linktr.ee/The_...
Intro music:
To God Be The Glory, composed by William Howard Doane (1832-1916) with descant arranged by Richard M S Irwin (b. 1955). Melody Public Domain, Descant © 2020 Richard M S Irwin
Performance ℗ 2020 Richard M S Irwin. All rights reserved. ISRC: UKTU21900097
play.hymnswith...
I am becoming Confessional Lutheran (very similar to conservative reformed Anglicanism) and I agree, we need to turn the focus onto our own traditions that we believe are true, instead of lumping ourselves into an umbrella term with heretics and enthusiasts
Hello, I'm an outsider and kinda stupid. Could you help me understand this?
What would be the most agreed on reasons for wanting a separate identity from other Protestants?
Is this more about how to act as a Christian or something like a political division?
I feel like I'm watching the middle of a Dr Who episode I've never seen, I feel like I know some of these words are important but I don't know why yet. 😊
@@foundingfarther originally, “Protestants” were those who simply dissented about certain practices in the Roman Catholic Church, like the supremacy of the Pope and the selling of indulgences (buying your way out of Purgatory), but they had no intention of changing major doctrines like the Trinity or the Eucharist. Then, however, piggy backers came along and started the radical reformation, which is what defines most of American Christianity. This is why most classical Protestants do not wish to be lumped under the Umbrella term of “Protestantism”
@@joseortegabeede8233 ty
@@joseortegabeede8233 a correction, originally 'protestants' were protesting the repeal of a law in the Holy Roman Empire (HRE); it was a political term, and many Scandinavian and Baltic Lutherans don't refer to themselves as protestant because they were simply not part of the HRE.
The English picked it up as a religious term (as protesting the Roman Catholic tradition) and here we are today. Protestant is now used to translate the german 'Evangelische' (of the gospel) which adds some confusion with the American Evangelicals not recognising Evangelische churches celebrating saints days, having a liturgical calendar, vestments and paraments, traditional views on Baptism and Holy Communion, smells and bells as evangelical (they tend to be seen as Roman Catholic).
@@joseortegabeede8233 The Catholic Church does not now nor has it ever approved the sale of indulgences. This is to be distinguished from the undeniable fact that individual Catholics (perhaps the best known of them being the German Dominican Johann Tetzel [1465-1519]) did sell indulgences-but in doing so they acted contrary to explicit Church regulations. This practice is utterly opposed to the Catholic Church’s teaching on indulgences, and it cannot be regarded as a teaching or practice of the Church.
In the 16th century, when the abuse of indulgences was at its height, Cardinal Cajetan (Tommaso de Vio, 1469-1534) wrote about the problem: “Preachers act in the name of the Church so long as they teach the doctrines of Christ and the Church; but if they teach, guided by their own minds and arbitrariness of will, things of which they are ignorant, they cannot pass as representatives of the Church; it need not be wondered at that they go astray.”
The Council of Trent (1545-1564) issued a decree that gave Church teaching on indulgences and that provided stringent guidelines to eliminate abuses:
Since the power of granting indulgences was conferred by Christ on the Church (cf. Mt 16:19, 18:18, Jn 20:23), and she has even in the earliest times made use of that power divinely given to her, the holy council teaches and commands that the use of indulgences, most salutary to the Christian people and approved by the authority of the holy councils, is to be retained in the Church, and it condemns with anathema those who assert that they are useless or deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them.
In granting them, however, it desires that in accordance with the ancient and approved custom in the Church moderation be observed, lest by too great facility ecclesiastical discipline be weakened. But desiring that the abuses which have become connected with them, and by any reason of which this excellent name of indulgences is blasphemed by the heretics, be amended and corrected, it ordains in a general way by the present decree that all evil traffic in them, which has been a most prolific source of abuses among the Christian people, be absolutely abolished. Other abuses, however, of this kind which have sprung from superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or from whatever other sources, since by reason of the manifold corruptions in places and provinces where they are committed, they cannot conveniently be prohibited individually, it commands all bishops diligently to make note of, each in his own church, and report them to the next provincial synod. (Sess. 25, Decree on Indulgences)
In 1967 Pope Paul VI reiterated Catholic teaching on indulgences and added new reforms in his apostolic constitution Indulgentiarum Doctrina
I wonder how the EO and RC will respond to this since they seem to have the biggest difficulty understanding distinctions and how to interpret them. They just want to make life easy on themselves and attack "Protestantism" as one giant organism and not study distinctions, at least that my impression from the TH-cam folks.
I mean its really not that difficult to recognize the difference. But to be fair, any person that calls himself a Protestant online is usually a part of the American western "tradition" of 1000 churches. The onus is on you to identify yourself clearly before having a discussion.
Generally, they want to attack the easiest target. So they go after Pastor Bill's Church of Me and My Bible Under a Tree. They aren't looking to respond to Martin Chemnitz's Examination of the Council of Trent.
@Cosmic Mystery That's extremely doubtful. In my experience most people who flee mainline protestantism either leave Christianity or end up confessional. But in either case, you are proving my point. Your church contradicts its own councils and of you are RCC is little more than a club people belong to for traditions sake and if you are EO your church is just a weak arm of the government.
@Cosmic Mystery I could say the same the EO and RC. So the "point" is very dull. The question is do you guys agree on the essentials and the answer is no, but with you guys you all think you are the true church and condemn everyone not under you, so you guys are really fragmented beyond repair until one of you wins the battle of supremacy.
I’ve dropped the label Protestant myself for the same reasons you have. I just identify myself as reformed because even though I’m specifically Presbyterian, I still adopt the 3 forms of Unity as part of the confessions I subscribe to. Also, my church confesses the continental reformed standards along with the Westminster standards, so there’s that.
Same here - although I prefer to refer to myself as "Reformed Evangelical" to line up with the terms "Roman Catholic" and "Greek/Russian/etc. Orthodox", going with the Reformation-era sense of the autonym "Evangelical".
Protestant is our word, you can call us Protesta
Defending Anglicanism is going to cause you just as much pain as defending broader "Protestantism"
The broad "Anglican Church" is a mess
What tradition's visible expressions aren't a mess right now?
Theologically speaking, yes, it'll be much easier to defend just Anglicanism than a mere-Protestantism, as it is a specific tradition and not an umbrella of traditions.
@@TheOtherPaul Fair, although people who are actually being fair (which isn't most of the people criticizing "prots") will understand that Protestant isn't a blanket term that defines one group
@@TheOtherPaul The Anglican Communion is in a mess because it is Protestant
@@dougy6237
No, it is in a mess because of modernism/postmodernism, leftism, and freemasonry.
In one word: unbelief.
@@allisvanity...9161 No, Anglicanism is in a mess, precisely due to the fact that it is a Protestant organisation. The Protestant practice of 'Bible as Final Authority' results in every organisation arriving at every fanciful and bizare doctrinal conclusions, and continual division. Homexuality, women "priests", homosexual divorce, contraception, IVF, euthanasia...nothing is out of bounds and all is justified by "the meaning of Bible". One example, the Anglican communion held that contraception was "not Biblical", until 1930 when the Lamberth Conference declared it to be Biblical. It is precisely because of the practice of Sola Scriptura that the Anglican organisaton and all Protestant organisatoins are in a mess. They were in a mess from the moment they began.
Though I am fond of the idea of magisterial Protestantism as a useful fiction in some cases, I definitely like your reasoning here. Ironically, it lines up pretty well with the Roman Catholic philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre’s contention that everyone, whether they like it or not, belongs to an intellectual tradition, a community operating on certain fundamental agreements about the way things are, and that a tradition can really only be critiqued by one writing within a tradition (be it that same tradition or another). Most Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox criticisms of “Protestantism,” as you’ve noted before, really don’t apply to the confessional Anglican tradition.
For reference, if anyone’s curious, in his book _Whose Justice? Which Rationality?_ Alasdair MacIntyre defines an intellectual tradition as follows:
“A tradition is an argument extended through time in which certain fundamental agreements are defined and redefined in terms of two kinds of conflict: those with critics and enemies external to the tradition who reject all or at least key parts of those fundamental agreements, and those internal, interpretative debates through which the meaning and rationale of the fundamental agreements come to be expressed and by whose progress a tradition is constituted. Such internal debates may on occasion destroy what had been the basis of common fundamental agreement, so that either a tradition divides into two or more warring components, whose adherents are transformed into external critics of each other's positions, or else the tradition loses all coherence and fails to survive. It can also happen that two traditions, hitherto independent and even antagonistic, can come to recognize certain possibilities of fundamental agreement and reconstitute themselves as a single, more complex debate.”
Good takes here king
I happen to be taking the opposite approach by calling our new show the Protestant Podcast. I fully understand the difficulties involved, but I went in that direction because it allows me to network with Christians from other historic traditions involved in the Reformation. Honestly, I see no other way because:
(1) I don't fit neatly into any of the historic Reformation traditions. I am somewhere between Luther, Calvin, and Cramner.
(2) My local church doesn't fit neatly into any of them either. Our doctrine and practice is somewhere between Luther, Calvin, and Cranmer.
(3) Our denomination (CREC) doesn't fit neatly into any of them either. We accept churches holding to a range of historic Reformation-era Confessions (Westminster, Three Forms, 39 Articles, 1689 London, etc.) yet we practice paedocommunion and have a mix of high and low church liturgies among us.
Some have called us Presbytanglicans, which is funny, but that's the whole point of our Communion: Reformed Catholicity. So I would say we are just about the closest thing to a "Protestant" denomination there has ever been.
In any case, keep up the good work. I have profited much from your videos, and look forward to many more.
Every blessing.
Good decision. As an RC, I totally agree, and I think it will help move the conversation forward and allow the arguments on both sides to be more focused on specific teachings in each camp. God bless!
I do appreciate and benefit from your materials. God bless you and your future works.
Thanks king
There is one saving grace for the cringe JWs=Prots. The epistemic presumptions are almost entirely intact (JWs do have an odd view of magisterium of their own). As for the rest of Protestantism, their epistemic foundation is identical. Essentially, sola scriptura, with appeals to tradition *only when* that tradition proves the peculiar view of the individual and the denomination he presently identifies as. Hence, the Presbyterians will appeal to tradition with baptism and baptists, ironically, do so with the opposite. The Anglicans will appeal to tradition with ecclesiology, but the baptists and Presbyterians will not. Conservative Lutherans will appeal to tradition with Prayers for the Dead. None will appeal to tradition with icons other than a select few Anglicans. It is pretty clear there is no real difference between Sola and Solo Scriptura. The epistemic basis is always the same. Sola Scriptura always applies to individual interpretation through the magisterial lens of their own denomination's traditional views, and thereby weed through Sacred Tradition cherrypicking what fits their later tradition. Hard words, but these are hard facts.
In reality, certain denominations are supposed to not be communing others (i.e. Missouri Synod officially does not commune ELCA). However, the vast preponderance of Protestants of all denominations from high Anglicans to low church Baptists all communing each other reveals that they *do* recognize a kinship. What is this kinship being that their traditions are so different in so many ways? Their shared epistemology. This is why one can change from low church baptist pentecostal to a high church anglican *so easily*, easier than a RC can become EO. Despite RCs and EOs looking so similar, their epistemic presumptions are far different than any Prot denom is from any other Prot denom...or even RCism from Protestantism, not coincidentally.
So, I think until people transparently look at their own faith tradition's foundational assumptions, they cannot situate themselves vis a vis other faith traditions.
Sola Scriptura only means that the Bible is supreme, and infallible in matters of the Faith. It is not a total rejection of traditions that do not contradict it. What is called Solo Scriptura adds exclusive to the definition.
@@allisvanity...9161 Again, Sola Scriptura is still false and ahistorical. Holy tradition and scripture go hand-in-hand. If there's a "tradition of men" then obviously it's rejected. However, what I've seen recently was that Protestants lump together men's traditions with holy traditions and discard them both, effectively removing one of the most integral parts of the faith leaving their worship feeling dull and dead (which is one of the reasons why people leave Protestantism in the first place).
@@awake3083
When Athanasius defended the Trinity, he appealed to Sacred Scripture not tradition. Only Scripture, God's infallible, and inerrant word can enable us to distinguish between true, and false; good, and bad traditions. Traditions of the Church, such as the Procession, the Collect for Purity, etc are not mandated by God, but are pious practices. Liturgy, and other traditions developed, and changed over thousands of years.
Your criticisms of Protestantism are generalizations based on the Anabaptist & Nondenominational groups. They do not reflect Conservative Anglicanism, or Confessional Lutheranism. Even the Conservative Presbyterians, and Continental Reformed have a reverent, and dignified order of worship, though not a Liturgy.
@@allisvanity...9161 "When Athanasius defended the Trinity, he appealed to Sacred Scripture not tradition"
Woah, it's almost as if the Trinity is **explicitly** within scripture so he needed to appeal to it to prove orthodox doctrine to the Arian heretics. What kind of argument is this? Is this REALLY what you have to cite in an attempt to prove Sola Scriptura? Can I cite St. Irenaeus of Lyons when he explicitly cited Sacred Tradition when he was battling against the Gnostics? The Gnostics tried to purport Scripture too and because of them being outside of the Church, we have the right away to appeal to her (The Church) and Scripture when defending certain issues. Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura and effectively indistinguishable because all Protestant bodies appeal to certain doctrines but still disagree with one another. It's a Build-A-Bear Christianity. Everything else you wrote is irrelevant to the topic. Anglicans, Lutherans, Baptists, etc share a kinship: 1. They're blatantly schismatic. 2. They appeal to their very own traditions when using scripture.
@@awake3083
I mentioned Athanasius to show the historicity of implicit Sola Scriptura. Obviously not explicit though.
The proof of Sola Scriptura is that only Scripture is God breathed, and therefore binds the conscience. The traditions that Irenaeus of Lyons cited pertained to the physicality of Christ's incarnation, and resurrection. Not rites, and ceremonies. By the way, how old was the Lord when he died? Irenaeus claimed it on apostolic tradition that he was an old man. It was part of his recapitulation theory of the atonement.
Magisterial Protestants agree in the Ecumenical Creeds, the 5 Solas, and much else. You brought up dead worship hence my relevant point.
Enjoying your work dude 👍 also, you're the only guy that can get me through one of Christian Wagner's videos lol
Isn't it better to say that you're anglican but at the same time don't deny that you're a protestant? To me is like if a muslim critiques christianity as a whole and ask me to defend the papacy, in order to not commit me to defend other christian tradition I say: I'm not christian, I'm protestant. Or: I'm not christian, I'm presbyerian. Of course the fact that I'm protestant doesn't deny that I'm christian, same could be applied to you, the fact that you are anglican doesn't deny you are protestant, or if you wanna be more conservative, it doesn't deny that you are a magisterial protestant
Making your way to Orthodoxy I see...
Ew stop
Orthodoxy is akin to papacy without the pope
He don’t pray to Idols
@@geordiewishart1683 what!?😂
@@internautaoriginal9951 LOL Prot meansauce crap-posting is so much worse than Orthobro trash talking,
I like your willingness to engage in some introspection and modify opinions. Historically the Church in the Apostolic Fathers identified herself as Catholic (Ignatius, Smyrn. 8, Apostles' Creed), or the "one holy Catholic apostolic church." (Nicene Creed). Protestant is a generic negative term which could not be the proper name of the Church.
Excellent, Paul. Thank you for the mention.
If you are not one with Christ true church the Holy catholic and Apostolic church you are protestant.
False.
@@TheOtherPaul So one might say you protest his claim?😉
I appreciate this, I really hate those Catholic memes that show flying drummers and gay pastors and then say "see look how dumb and gay Protestantism is.
This will just shut down that kind of non sense immediately
When you say that you will promote Anglicanism, do you mean that you will,promote Anglicanism’s current approval of immorality as itemized by Paul?
this is definitely better because as an anglican, i agree with tons of stuff about EO and RC but still get criticized for it by RCs and EOs because I’m a “Protestant”
Hey brother, been exploring your tradition and I love the “reformed Anglican” sphere specifically. I am in Tennessee though, and that specific segment of Anglicanism seems extremely rare in America. I would love to explore this deeper, what do you recommend
Thanks much for this video.
Didn't the Anglican Church start during the reformation under King Henry? I don't see how it's not Protestant or at least one of its branches.
Im not denying it is, please re-watch (as well as watch other streams where I discuss the distinction between an historical category vs an ecclesiological one. Cant give links atm as Im at work)
The Current Church of England started under Queen Elizabeth 1st. Queen Mary destroyed the Church of England as Henry the 8th organized her. No continuous existing Church organization exists today in the Church of England as envisioned by Henry the 8th.
@@adolphCat there’s just no way Anglicanism is the truest form of Christianity if I have to bring up Queen Elizabeth every time I mention how it begun. With the apostolic churches we start with Christ and his disciples. All the English talk just seems like a terrible way to present a universal church lol.
@@nathanw.3187 The English Church started with St. Augustine of Canterbury, but the current organizational structure in its current form is from Queen Elizabeth 1st. No National Church organization is Universal the Polish Catholic Church is primarily for the Polish. Bishops of Poland don't have Universal Jurisdiction. You seem to be confusing concepts and collapsing things together. The French Gallican Catholic Church before the French Revolution had quit a bit of Freedom from Rome. Christian Kings before the French Revolution had a quite a bit of influence and say about the Organization of the Church in their Realms as a rule. The idea of a Monolithic Church Organization spanning the Whole World is actually quite modern. If you have something against the Anglican Church structure or the Anglican Faith you need to show how she departs from the Historical Christian Faith and not simply point to the fact that the Church of England was reformed by Queen Elizabeth 1st.
Every National Church was founded by different people King Clovis the 1st, the French Church, Prince St. Vladimir the Ukrainian/Russian Church, St. Patrick the Irish Church, etc.
Very interesting, I had a similar thought this week. As prots, we ought to find homes in broader magisterial reformation churches, LUTHERAN/ANGLICAN/PRESBYTERIAN, to stop divisions and develop stronger unity.
1689 LBCF brother checking in. Join us! The water is nice.
I wrote an article for Edgar's blog (rip) on this a few months ago, saying that we need to compare traditions to traditions not broad labels to individual churches. I'm keeping my channel name tho because its not an apologetics thing lol.
Dang. I love your channel but loved how you would defend Protestantism as a whole. We have way more in common them what we have different. Still love your channel and I'll keep watching though. I hope this is a good move.
I totally agree. Discovered @The Other Paul on Revealed Apologetics, and been following ever since. Been really enjoying seeing @The Other Paul team up with other protestants and defending the protestantism as a whole. Along with Gavin Ortlund at Truth Unites, The Other Paul has been a much needed voice for protestantism on TH-cam. Sad if that now comes to an end. I understand the reasoning in the video, just hope the focus won't be too narrow.
@@skyscraperphilosopher8476 not at all coming to an end my friend. I mention in the video collaborations with other Prots on things we defend, just as Ive always done. And Ive believed what I expressed in the vid for a long while, even mentioning it many times in streams. The only difference now is that Im consciously applying this consistently.
@felixfaust1760 likewise to you. Don't fret; mutual collabs with other Prots and defences of our shared values will continue as usual.
Become Anglican and you don't need to stop loving his content.
Thanks for this. I been struggling myself. In in a chat group with u on X. Appreciate it
Glad to help! Send me a message if needed
All for the glory of Christ & The Body of The Church
I just don’t understand why there is so much conflict within Christianity. I was raised Baptist, (and still feel that we should form a personal bond with the Lord) But for a while, i was getting confused on what was considered the “true Christianity.” Since then, i have just focused on my relationship with the Lord, focus on the teaching of the Word, and increase my understanding of the Word.
I was a Protestant who never thought of myself as a Protestant. But one could say that if you do not accept the authority of the Church that Jesus founded and the authority He set up, you are a Protestant. You are protesting against the one true church. The Anglican Church only exists because King Henry VIII protested against the Catholic Church not allowing him to divorce and thus made up His own authority and rules... A Protestant.
This is a good video and I agree with you. We should chuck the P word. It represents something that doesn’t really exist, a mirage per se. Sadly, the P word is so entrenched in English vocabulary that it’s probably here to stay.
Thanks boss. Thankfully, language can and does change with enough popular use, even if only in certain social circles. I think it's more than feasible if enough people make the committment.
Papist?
Yes, get rid
There are more problems with chucking the P word than keeping it. For instance, confessional Presbyterians are going to be closer doctrinally than Anglo-Catholics who slap Newman on the 39 Articles so they can pray to saints and venerate icons.
Well put. Thank you. I would be very interested in hearing your defense of the Anglican confession. Do you have a vid up on this topic?
So is this Apologia Anglicana 3.0? Just kidding, appreciate your content brother. Anglicanism is an awesome expression of Christianity, and I hope God will use you and others like you to return the broader tradition to its former orthodoxy and Biblical faithfulness. More Cranmer, less Welby.
Great video.
The Anglican Church has seen significant shifts in its stances on both contraception and homosexual clergy over the past century. In 1930, the Lambeth Conference marked a turning point by officially approving the use of contraception, allowing married couples to limit family size for morally sound reasons.
Decades later, the church's approach to gay clergy evolved, particularly highlighted by the 2003 consecration of Gene Robinson, an openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, which sparked controversy and division within the Anglican Communion. In 2013, the Church of England further decided that clergy in civil partnerships could become bishops, provided they remain celibate, reflecting a broader, though still contentious, acceptance of diverse sexual orientations within its clergy.
Are you okay with these reversals of Church doctrine?
Contraception im morally undecided on (tho from prudence I am all for its ban given what it has been used to justify). Homosexual clergy I obviously oppose.
@@TheOtherPaul Fair enough, but clearly the Anglican Church was either teaching error BEFORE these changes, or it's teaching error SINCE these changes. That seems problematic. Can the Church teach error at this level of magnitude?
Jesus said to Peter:
“Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Mt 18:19, cf. Is 22:20-22)
In saying this, Jesus guaranteed that the Church’s definitive decisions would be backed up by the authority of heaven itself. So radical is this authority that He would also say of His Church,
"He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me." (Matt. 10:40; cf. Luke 10:16; 1 Tim. 3:15; Eph. 3:10; 4:11-15).
Jesus cannot teach error; anyone who hears Jesus cannot hear error, and anyone who hears Jesus’ apostles cannot hear error. Thus the authority of the Church which speaks in the name of Jesus cannot err; it is an infallible authority, i.e., the authority of Christ himself.
I was Reading J C Ryle, Outstanding !!!
Brother what is your view on double predestination and God's universal salvific will? Great video and i'll watch more of your videos, good content. Gos bless you bro!
Many thanks mate :) I think "double predestination" is just predestination itself, its logical outcome. If God predestined some to salvation, he ipso facto predestined others to damnation. Of course, we can speak of the former being active while the latter is passive (i.e. some are positively infused with the necessady graces for salvation, while others are just left in their sin).
If by double predestination you mean equal-ultimacy, I deny that.
There are more problems with chucking the P word than keeping it. For instance, confessional Presbyterians are going to be closer doctrinally to Anglicanism as established (formularies) than Anglo-Catholics who slap Newman on the 39 Articles so they can pray to saints and venerate icons.
Good vid Paul, I agree with you that we shouldn’t have to defend views that we ourselves do not hold. I’d be interested to know your current/updated views from your Anglican perspective - ie. on the Eucharist/sacraments more generally, the nature of priesthood etc.
Also, if I could push you on something - I’ve noticed your inclusion of sola scriptura in your intros, how do you fit that into an Anglican framework, especially in relation to Articles 20, 22, & 34 of the 39A?
God bless brother
Thanks boss. I plan for the mid-term future a commentary series on the 39 Articles, which will in turn give my position on these various issues. For the Eucharist tho Ive recently come to adopt a Calvinist view of heavenly participation.
I don't think Catholics will listen to this nuance. Also I think there is relation among protestants defined by Sola Fide that is fair to group us together. Also since we believe an invisible church ,we do think we are one church. Ridged confessionalism doesn't solve the problem of disunity, Presbyterian, Anglican and Lutheran denominations have churches that are radically different from other churches of the same denominations.
On the contrary, there's a number of well thought out Romanists who accept this reality. See my buddy Allan Ruhl in these very comments as an example.
Im also not positing this as a solution to the problem of disunity, at least not in this video. Rather, it's the correction to the false framing perpetuated by many Romanists and Easterners.
@@TheOtherPaul Adherence to Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide defines you as Protestant.
No. We will listen to this. This is a much more honest and respectable approach.
@@From_Protestant_to_Christian What?
Isn't the billion denominations argument usually presented as an argument against using only the Bible as a binding rule of faith? In that context it seems totally valid to me to lump everyone agreeing to that together and argue that that is an insufficient rule of faith due to their disunity.
I guess if we make distinctions between protestants in the context of this argument it should be in terms of what authority structure they use, e.g. do they give tradition no to almost no weight or e.g. say we should follow tradition that was the consensus of the early church and does not contradict scripture
So the argument is "2 people disagree, therefore sola scriptura is false" Okay watch this. "two Churches (Rome, EO) disagree, therefore Tradition and history are false."
I'm looking into Anglicanism. The local Anglican church that I was looking into appears to ordain women in ministry. Is this normative of Anglicanism? What are your thoughts on that?
It's unfortunately very common, but unbiblical and contrary to traditional Anglican practice. Imo if theres no other Anglican option youd be better finding another faithful Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc., church that doesn't ordain women. I think that issue is fatal to the possibility of church unity
Off topic but want to ask. Why haven't you spoken about Richard Hooker?
I told you to do this ages ago and now you’re doing it. Even though you got triggered when I told you protestantism as a movement is not defensible.
I guess if you think it’s “your idea” then you’re more likely to roll with it. Amazing how the human brain works.
What is "ages" ago? This video is 6 months old. Where did I get "triggered"?
@@TheOtherPaul I had this back and forth with you multiple times and you blocked my other account so I had to comment on this one. Yes, it’s been ages.
6:22 unnecessary disunity
I am an atheist, but not the God hating type. If I had to chose I'd live among Baptist over any other sect including atheists.
I'd think what you see as disunity may be one of my favorite traits about them.
Anyone able to elaborate as I'd love to understand more about how different Anglicans see the Baptist.
I know I prolly sound like a troll but this is earnest. I prolly know more about Anglicans from Google and Eddie Izzard than from the hearts of actual Anglicans.
Do you think you could do a video on church authority? That's something I've been struggling with as a non RC. How do we know that our church leaders have the authority?
I've done something on this already as a sort-of prolegomena on the issue, laying out the various potential meanings of "authority" with respect to tradition and the church, and thus showing how affirming authoritative an tradition/church does not in itself denonstrate a Romanist/Eastern ecclesiology. More detail is intended in the future.
th-cam.com/video/x7viqir2eW0/w-d-xo.html
@@TheOtherPaul Thank you very much. I will check it out.
A good tool to use is the category of western catholic. It broad but it also shows you share a common western heritage, even with Rome , while not being Roman . All OG prots saw themselves as Catholics . This works in the broadest sense. You don’t see EOs defending OOs but they recognize a shared eastern worldview. And there are tons of non EOs( proper ), OOs, and COTE, in eastern Christianity so they to have a burden . We don’t call Coptics to be Old calendars, so why accuse Anglicans to be Baptists ? And vice versa .
that'd be too confusing for most people
What sort of anglicanism will you be approaching these issues from?
Out of curiosity, can a Protestant still be a Thomist? I have seen some Reformed circles like James White give Protestant Thomists a hard time.
I think so, especially those more from the Anglican and Lutheran churches.
Definitely! It's within the Reformation tradition, Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr Vermigli studied St. Aquinas deeply and were Thomists.
Protestantism is a position on what the body of the church looks like. Regardless of what denomination I am, I am a Protestant because I uphold the catholicity of all traditions that serve Christ.
Interesting point, but I think you’d have a better case of the Anglicans had not dropped the Real Presence and male only priesthood. Then you could not only claim most authentic expression, but add best liturgical music.
Anglicanism is apart of Protestantism. Defend Christianity (Protestantism)
Strongly disagree friend. I think TOP's approach is much more powerful.
What you want him to do is dishonest, very problematic and honestly just can't be done because there is no honest agreement on core doctrines by Protestants.
However, the approach TOP proposes here bypasses those obstacles and sets him up to be able to start defending a viewpoint. He's actually very smart for doing this. By starting the convo saying he's defending Anglicanism, the whole discussion about Prots disagreeing or having disunity on core doctrines becomes immaterial and allows him to not waste a lot of time having to defend the legitimacy pr existence (despite its error) of other Protestant theolgoies he rejects. Rather he can jump straight into starting a positive case for Anglicanism with no baggage of other conflicting Prot theologies. If a Catholic responds saying 'Lutherans say this' or 'Presbyterians say that' he can simply respond sayings 'that's all irrelevant because I'm here to defend Anglicanism'.
To even start saying you are 'defending Protestantism' has no meaning. From the start their were camps diverging on serious issues. I have texts from that time where they openly admit their serious disagreement on salvic doctrines.
On the other hand, you actually have a defensible positon when you start by saying your going to defend a particular Confession, Statement of Faith or a specific Protestant denomination. That's a meaningful and respectable claim.
Not to mention, its the most honest approach. When a Protestant tries to defend Protestantism like they all agree, in the Papists mindset they only see you as a liar. Wheras TOP will be seen as being more honest.
How do you deal with the issues in your Anglican camp like women priestesses, gay bishops, not referring to God as Father. You want to make that part of your Anglican defense??
He'd obviously specify which particular type of Anglicanism he's defending. I think that's reasonably implied by his stance here.
Completely agree.
How would you defend your Zwinglian views on the Eucharist in the context of defending Anglicanism? Does that conception even work within the Anglican framework? It would seem that such a view would be easier for you hold to within a vague assemblage of “Mere Protestantism,” like a sort of theological a la carte. That is, unless Anglicanism allows for such a purely symbolic, non-sacrificial view. I’m curious, since you’ll be more strictly holding to Anglicanism going forward.
I no longer hold a Zwinglian view.
Otherwise a good and serious question that I was reckoning with before deciding to drop the big Z
@@TheOtherPaul Nice. Welcome to team Real Presence. 😁
@@beowulf.reborn moreso Calvin gang
@@TheOtherPaul Thanks for replying!
There's enough non-thiests out there posing as "Christians" we do not need any more.
3:50-4:10 There is only one faith
Ephesians 4:5
James 1:27
Luke 22
Galatians 5:14
1
THESSALONIANS
5:14
"Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men.
KING JAMES VERSION (KJV)
Feeble minded indeed 😂
CORINTHIANS
2:14
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him:
neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
KING JAMES VERSION (KIV)
PSALMS
118:8
"It is better to trust in the
LORD than to put
99
confidence in man."
KING JAMES VERSION (KJV)
PROVERBS
23:9
"Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.'
KING JAMES VERSION (KJV)
ECCLESIASTES
7:5
"It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools.
99
KING JAMES VERSION (KJV)
ECCLESIASTES
10:12
"The words of a wise man's mouth are
gracious; but the lips of a fool will swallow up himself"
KING JAMES VERSION (KJV)
JOHN 8:47
"He that is of God hearth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God."
KING JAMES VERSION (KJV)
So basically you're Apologia Anglicana now?
Seems that way 😎
Very based.
🧠🤸♀️
Your anglicanism is on upside down continent
My non denominationalism is on correct continent
We are not the same.
Great attitude on this vid, brother.
….what are you trying to say?
@@TitusCastiglione1503 he and I are buddies, he knows.
@@AFlawedManOfGod ok just seems bizarrely cryptic for no reason
@@TitusCastiglione1503 indeed.
Is this some baptist humour I'm too superior to understand?
(Thank you king)
Hey @otherpaul is there an email I can contact you on?
Yep! theotherpaul64@gmail.com