I think it should be noted about Mary I, and Elizabeth I, Mary began executing protestants upon her ascendancy to the throne. Elizabeth didn't execute any Catholics during the first twelve years of her reign. i think this can be blamed on Pius V 1570 Bull Regnans in Excelsis when Elizabeth was found guilty on 17 counts of infidelity. Elizabeth's subjects were absolved from any oath of allegiance to her, and those who obeyed her were threatened with excommunication. There were uprisings and the effect of the Bull turned Catholics into traitors. I think that both of these queens were tragic figures. Henry VIII had dumped Mary's mother Catherine of Aragon, which supposedly the English people loved, and beheaded Elizabeth's mother, Anne Boleyn. But great video nonetheless.
One point I would like to make. You mention that Mary and Elizabeth were the first two women to rule as queens in their own right, as opposed to being wives of kings. This is not true. The first queen to rule in her own right was Empress Matilda - also called Empress Maude - the daughter of Henry I of England and widow of the Holy Roman Emperor Henry V. She became the king's heir after the death of her younger brother - William Adelin - in a shipping accident. The result, through no fault of her own (except her femaleness) a period remembered to this day as "19 years when God and His angels slept. Which may have been part of Knox' justification for his book "The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstruous Regimen of Women". But that is a wholely different story, and the history of Matilda's reign has little or nothing to do with historical theology.
I guess I don't know the difference between Anglicanism and Lutheranism. I always thought of it as a difference without distinction. Was the difference based on nationality? Was one more traditionalist than the other?
there is no difference between anglicanism and lutherianism. anglicanism was formed so that henry can marry and divore without the approval of any men . lutherianism was formed because luther wanted priest to be allowed to marry. he wanted to marry catherine a nun
Johnnyc drums There is a difference in certain theological keypoints. Whereas Lutheran theology holds certain beliefs regarding the sacraments, and the use of the mosaic law, Anglicanism in the other hand is based on a fairly more calvinistic approach to these issues.
While reading history I have found that I learn who the historian is as much as I do about the history he/she discusses. While listening to this lecture (which I found quite interesting) I started to wonder about the context that you place on these topics. I am not making an accusation for good or ill, I was just curious. Do you have a statement of your faith perspective somewhere? For instance, I consider myself to be an Apostle's Creed Christian. I fellowship at and am a member of a Pentecostal Church (Church of God Cleveland). I consider myself to have a Calvinist leaning in as much as I place a heavy weight on the "Sovereignty of God" and less on free will but I see the complete necessity of both and explaining the overt contradiction is difficult. (I see them as the opposite sides of the same coin. That is the best I can do.) Do you have a description of yourself that reveals your theological bent?
+Ervin Sims // I don't have anything of myself online to read, no. I tend to not want to make my teaching and writing about me, so I don't have a personal blog or anything. My background is varied. I was raised in a Reformed world but my parents are Pentecostal. But I have also studied in Baptist, Lutheran and Anglican schools (professors have too many degrees). I'm like you: creedal and confessional and I like historic perspectives, as I find modern evangelicals tend to be very self-centered in their faith and not enough focused on the roots. The school where I teach (Gordon-Conwell; gcts.edu) is very much a place I love because there are so many Protestant traditions among the student body.
