How Anglicanism is Protestant 

Every Anglican needs to watch this. Excellent.

Watched this. Totally agree. Love it.

Wow River, that was awesome. I am an Anglican, and now proud of it! You have inspired me so much. I suppose I will now have to watch some of your other videos! May God Bless you too.

Well done. I have recently been curious about Anglicanism and what it stands for? It isn’t easy to find much clarifying content that is easy to understand. Thank you for making it easy to understand and I really appreciate and agree with the bases of what you have just shared concerning the historical and biblical bases of what Anglicans believe. Amen to the truth.

Stay as you are. You are an inspiration. Thank you for your videos, you have bought me back to the Anglican church. May God bless you as you go about the Lord's work.

You just gained a Subscriber. I’ve been investigating Anglicanism for a little while and have gone a few Sundays to new church plant in my town of the ACNA. Your videos are answering a lot of my questions. Thanks so much. God bless you.

I am really enjoying your teaching. Wow I am learning how Anglicanism stands for and the beliefs. May the good Lord continue to use you to teach the Truth for His Kingdom and for our benefit.

River you are such a great teacher. I have learned so much from your videos. Please keep up the faith and I'll be praying for your ministry during my daily office.

My guy, thank you. That was excatly what i needed to hear.... that spacific connection between the protestant version of Papal Supremacy blew my mind... Holy crap

I am enjoying your videos. Keep up the good work!

Thank you for making this this was quite informative.

So glad I found this! I'm a Presbyterian (PCA) but I have a special place in my heart for Anglican/Episcopalian and the Book of Common Prayer. I did attend Episcopal services for a time, many years ago.

I was excited to see the book recommendation on J. I. Packer's book, two days after I read it! A suggestion, why don't you include book titles in the description of your videos for recommended reading? It could be helpful. Great video though, insightful and clear.

Very Educational Thank you so much!

I do believe i was meant to stumble upon your channel.. yahoo ty.

Interesting content. Thanks

Outstanding!! Thank you.

Also, the impression I get from the Formularies (as a whole) is that Anglicanism is a decidedly "Protestant-Catholic" way of faith. 'Catholic' in terms of worship and structure, but 'Protestant' in terms of actual theology.. .. Now, with that said, the Church of England sort of stops with "Protestant", it doesn't attempt to take a strict stand on the inter-Reformation fights but allows for a "big tent" that is definitively Reformational. So while some may interpret the Formularies as more specifically "Evangelical-Lutheran" and another more "Reformed-Calvinist" and yet another, "Wesleyan-Arminian".. they are all nonetheless fully within the pale of the Reformation tradition and thus tolerated as legitimate (though not ultimate) expressions of Anglicanism. This is what makes Anglicanism different from other Confessional traditions (such as my own or the Westminister).. 'Protestant' is enough for Canterbury. My two cents.

I am Lutheran and about to marry an Anglican. This video helped me a lot. I am not looking to convert my soon to be wife. I want us to better understand each other's church.

Thank you for reminding me again just why I'm protestant - and it's good!Blessings to you from Scotland.🙏🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

Thank you from a Catholic who went to Anglican church first time today. I like your teaching a lot. (Papal is pronounced "paypul" the way.😊)

Never underestimate the impact your videos are having.

I really appreciate this…in my disillusionment with Baptist theology and practice and exploration of Church history, I have drifted much closer to Catholic interpretations, almost coming to desire to fully disown my association with Protestantism for “Anglo-Catholicism” in the sense of the version that rejects Protestantism yet this has rekindled the beauty and more authentic interpretation of Protestant beliefs especially in the historically and doctrinal sense that seems to have been largely lost or downplayed in Protestant circles in the 21st century instead of highlighting their discrepancies and distinctions with the malpractices of the Catholic Church that rightly were criticized and reformed. Thank you for making these distinctions and the value of Protestantism and how Anglicanism is truly the Via Media “middle way” between the best of both the Protestant and Catholic traditions and in how the Church is and ought to be truly unified around the pure love of God in our hearts and lives in our pursuit of holiness and Christ’s refinement of our souls

This is really good. I think that the tendency in high church Protestantism as of late is to recoil from the term.. but I think the term is often misunderstood to be incompatible with "catholic", which is fundamentally important to our identity as Christians. At the same time, we did go through the Reformation and that is equally significant. Perhaps it's time to work on recapturing "Protestant" as much as we've emphasized recapturing "Catholic." So rather than saying "Catholic vs Protestant", we need to think in terms of "Roman Catholic vs Protestant-Catholic, or Reformed Catholic."

Reading Packer rn! The series is on my wishlist as well, and while the late Packer is more an endorser for Puritanism as I, he's a fantastic and blessed writer and thinker for the Anglican tradition (editor of the ACNA Anglican Cathechism & ESV Study Bible, among many others)

Im in England and am interested in Anglicanism. Its tge main church here. Im ex orthodox, having embraced the Gospel i need to find a church. But im not sure about all the liberal chaos in Anglicanism and its hierarchical structure.

Nailing it mate! I don't think walking away from our brothers and sisters is the most elegant solution, a more persuasive perspective is available to us.

In your closing comments, you said that you would probably lose some followers. For being challenged to look into our faith? Faith isn't easy, we need people who aren't afraid to stand up for it. Yes, I do struggle, thank you for helping in my journey. God bless 🙏

I am not an Anglican but I enjoyed and agree with your comments. I used to attend an Anglican church, went to a Methodist School and was married in a Presbyterian church. I consider many of the Christian churches have lost their way. Woke and liberal, oh what's the term now? Oh that's right Inclusive. But as you have proven with your video the churches may be somewhat lost it doesn't mean the people are. And that's what a Protestant is.

I am Church of England, therefore I am Protestant. I am not a RC hater, but I believe our way is the correct way. I am married to a RC and my children are RC.

Good video

Thank you for your informative videos. I too live in NZ and I am excited to hear you are of the Confessing Anglican movement. I would love to know if thete are any Confessing Anglican churches in the Whanganui and Manawatu regions?

I Charles, do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne, uphold and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law.

Proud anglican from India♥️

Thank you

God bless you xxx

So if a Catholic chaplain in the British Army says a Requiem Mass for a soldier killed on active duty, then King Charles III says it’s a blasphemous fable?

I would also add, that “Protestants” existed long before Luther. There were several “reformers” who were doing work to see people come back to the scriptures but no one made as much progress as Luther

I’m sharing this to my meme page. My only criticism is that Luther did not make a stand by leaving Rome of his own free will. Rome had him persecuted. I’m a conservative evangelical Episcopalian and I respect those who have left their established churches, but I think this is an important qualification historically.

I had a look at the back of my Catholic Church here in England to see what was for sale. Some Get Well cards, some rosary beads but no indulgences. In your church it used to be possible to buy advowsonships, but I believe they are no longer for sale either. Is that right? You didn’t actually declare your opposition to trading in advowsonships in your apparent compendium of Protestant beliefs. Would you like to set the record straight? I am also a member of St John’s College, Cambridge, one of the principal culprits as I would put it.

This was a very informative teaching. I'm a Protestant who isn't sure of my denomination, and I never really conceptualized Anglican as Protestant. Then again, I have never really known much about Anglicanism at all. I just saw it as being like the Roman Church, except in England 😛

My heart breaks for what seems to be standing for today. What you have said here leads me to believe I’m on the right track. I have decided for the time being to stay with my local Cof E Church. But should it go for none Scriptural things such as you have mentioned, then I would go looking for a new home. So far so good, I really like where I am. Everything has been thrown into a mess by lock downs.

There is no doubt from the Anglican formularies that Anglicans are axiomatically Protestant. With the exception of John Henry Newman who abandoned the faith of the Anglican formularies, the Tractarians were calling attention to the fact that the English Church was not a sectarian church under the control of the secular state but rather a continuation of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that came to Britain during the Roman Empire even though the English Church was now no longer under under the authority of the Bishop of Rome.

I thought this was where the term Protestant originated namely a protests against the Holy Roman Emperor not against the Pope rejecting Luther: In 1526, a meeting of the Reichstag (in practice, a form of German imperial parliament) issued the Recess of 27 August, stating that each individual government within the empire could decide which religion they wished to follow. It would have been a triumph of religious freedom, had it lasted. However, a new Reichstag which met in 1529 was not so amenable to the Lutherans, and the Emperor canceled the Recess. In response, the followers of the new church issued the Protest, which protested against the cancellation on April 19th.

I am an Anglican (Episcopalian)

I am glad you make this point clear because I have been sharing an undeniable statement: All protestants are in error - and that's a fact. There is no liturgical recourse for the protestants who have broken away from what had always been the Church's modus operandi regarding worship and the belief in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. You can easily ask any protestant about the various forms of liturgical rites throughout Church history to see what the true catholic or universal Church looks like. Regardless of any dispute, debate, or disagreement that occurred in the Church, it is undeniable that the protestant revolution absolutely opened the door for secular relativism brought about by enlightenment philosophers. By becoming one's own interpreter of Sacred Scripture, every single facet of knowledge was brought under scrutiny. This is the fruit of prostestantism and we now live in its repercussions and wake as we slowly recognize that objectively, there can be and only has ever been one true Church.

You are correct sir!

If only things "explicitly" mentioned in scripture are to be believed, then we must reject the doctrine of the Trinity.

It was Cramner who evilly talked Henry out of receiving the last Sacraments of the Catholic Church though he devoutly wanted them

I am a convert to the Episcopal Church here in the US. Over my 25 years as an Episcopalian, I have observed that those who do not view themselves as Protestant, frequently display a certain kind of exclusivity and exclusionary mindset, almost bordering on a snobbishness against Protestants.

I think an important clarification on the rejection of the mass is that Protestants believe in and value the once for all sacrifice of Christ on the cross. We do not want to be overly subjective in our articulation of salvation. It's not that salvation is about us and our heart for Christ, but that salvation is about Christ and His heart for sinners. We emphasize the objective, outside of us, once for all work of Christ for us in history as being of first importance. Later developments within Protestantism known as pietism moved piety from the ordinary means of grace in the visible church to the individual subjective experience in the affections. So I would be careful of characterizing Protestant faith as overly subjective rather than "extra nos". The Reformation recovered the glorious reality that our whole salvation is outside of us in Christ. That said I appreciated you highlighting and clarifying the distinct issues that put Anglicanism squarely within the Protestant church. Love your work brother!

Do Protestant Anglicans use incense, statues, votives, and crossing themselves or are those just Anglo Catholic practices? I'm just wondering, bc I am a high church Lutheran (called Evangelical Catholic) and we do those things.

Anglican Ordinariate allows Anglicans to be close to, respect and value the Petrine Ministry bringing their Anglican traditions with them...

Sorry to interject here, I'm only 2:25 minutes into what I know will be another great video. But can we clear up the what is a Catholic and what is a Roman Cathic question, first. I've only had this explained to me once but it must be made clear that all Christians are 'Catholics' like all thumbs are fingers but not all thingers are thumbs. When we hear the word Catholic, people automatically think Roman Catholic. But when we Protestants mean when we say 'Catholic and apostolic church..." in the creed, we actually mean something aside from Rome or its doctrine. Whereas people who call themselves Anglo-Catholic, are siding with Roman Catholics. Its all quite confusing but needs to be addressed at some point. Back to the video 👍

Great video. But why do you guys still have "priests" if there is no eucharistic sacrifice? Why an altar?

Also, I think it is good to question the scripture but only in the sense that we are attempting to understand it better. Apologetics does this all the time, not because it doubts the scripture, but because it has complete faith and confidence in the truth of Gods word. So the questions are asked in order to bring outsiders to a deeper understanding by thorough and careful contemplation of the content of the scriptures.

So I am English and I believe the Mass is a sacrifice. Which Church should I join?

today we see the pope bow to the UN. We here in Australia now have majority of state premiers proudly promote their catholic beliefs. Australia was set up on the church of England. our constitution was based on it. Based on the protestant beliefs. built on those beliefs. paid for and fought for with those beliefs. Now we see it all forgotten. And you my new found friend, explain a lot as to why. Its all cain vs able.

Does it says SOLA in a Bible ? Or Luter add it ?

thanks! i liked the video--but I'm a little confused on your interpretation of Article 17. I don't see where it teaches perseverance of the saints.

I tend to see Protestant theology as the cause of so many of the problems in the Anglican Communion, not the solution.

I read a book authored by Archbishop or Bishop it escapes my mind now. It explained that we Catholics should always call ourselves Roman Catholics (our Father is in Rome the Pope) because the Anglican call themselves catholics. Wow this is a reassurance of what he said. Thank you for explaining it. Byw, I am a cradle Roman Catholic.

John Jewel, "An Apology of the Church of England" J.I Packer, "The Anglican Heritage"

Watching the Coronation of King Charles III, I was struck by how much Protestant Theology was on view and the vows the King had to make in support of Protestantism. It added an extra dimension to my enjoyment, not just being a Brit but being an Anglican.

I'm curious about your use of article 17 here. Mostly because I find it a baffling article. The first paragraph seems to set forth predistination in such a light as to affirm the perserverance of saints and reprobation of the unchosen, if only as a silent inference. Yet the second, pastoral, section, describes undue consideration of it by the ungodly or those who havent yet come to (been brought to) Christ as a "most dangerous downful", and something usable by the devil himself to thrust us into "wretchedness and most unclean living". Now, this is a confusing claim if the chosen are ever chosen an the unchosen are ever reprobate; where is the danger for the elect who God has chosen from any downfall? And where is the danger to those who will never truly come to Christ?

I find it ironic that Anglicans claim Scripture as their authority, given the very origin of the Church of England, which was Henry VIII's desire to circumvent the Bible's prohibition against divorce and marry his eight wives...

I'm from Texas (Baptist county) but these past couple years I've been challenged with my views of the sacraments I'm currently going to an Orthodox Presbyterian church plant in the evening but last week started going to a ACNA church I have to say it was a beautiful service. I'm trying to learn more about the Anglican Church and your videos have helped tremendously. Sadly, I hate to see how much liberal theology is destroying every denomination in this day from Presbyterian, Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, even the Southern Baptist are heading in that direction. I'm thankful for godly men like yourself that stand up against such foolish teachings with boldness in the authority of God's word. If the Lord terries we'll look back at men like you who like Athanasius standing against Arianism will stand against the heresy of liberalism in the Church.

I am Anglican. Only 2 minutes through and ready to rant on the role of Anglicanism in the Anglo-Catholic sphere. Via media. Das mittel. I love our neutrality.

Anglicans requested its construction not Benedict...he as Peter, responded....

Hello. Probably my commetn might sound disturbing and I apologize for that. The issue of the acceptance of the Holy Tradition of the historical Church, is indirectly related to the assessment of the sola fide and Protestant understanding of the works of faith which is related to the sola fide. There is a point of a contradiction of sola fide with the Holy Scripture which is the rejection of the works of faith for justification and for salvation. Regardless of whether the free will is thought to be violated due to man being considered totally depraved like in Lutheranism and Calvinism, wherefore he is considered unable to accept with his free will the grace’s gift of faith which precedes its acceptance by man’s free will (Acts 18:27, John 6:44) and so his will is violated by the grace (the teaching of the irresistable grace in Calvinism where some are considered predestined for salvation and others predestined for damnation), or that the free will is not violated regarding the acceptance of the grace which precedes its acceptance by the free will like in Evangelicalism, in both cases and in Protestantism as a whole the works of faith are not considered necessary for salvation together with faith by grace. Grace is accepted or rejected with the free will - Luke 7:29-30 in relation with 1 Timothy 2:4:,,When they heard this all the people and the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John; 30 but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.“ (Luke 7:29-30, Orthodox Study Bible); ,,For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, † 4who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.“ (1 Timothy 2:4, Orthodox Study Bible). The works of faith are impossible to do without God’s grace:,,But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.“; ,,“I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.“ (1 Corinthians 15:10, John 15:5, Orthodox Study Bible), so they are Christ’s merits and are not solely our works. And the calling of God’s grace precedes the will to do those works:,,Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; † 13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.“ (Philippians 2:12-13, Orthodox Study Bible). The fruits are the good works:,,that you may walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing Him, being fruitful in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God;“ (Colossians 1:10, Orthodox Study Bible). As the works of faith are impossible to do without God’s grace, they are gifts of God. The believers will be held accountable for not doing the works of faith:,,Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; a and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit.“ (John 15:2, Orthodox Study Bible). That is why the believers will be judged not only according to their faith (John 3:18) but also according to their works (John 5:25-29, Matthew 16:27, Revelation 2:23) in the sense of rejecting God’s grace because the works of faith are done in synergism with God’s grace and are impossible to do without God’s grace (1 Cor. 15:10, John 15:5), wherefore their rejection is a rejection of God’s grace and so the rejection to do them is punishable - Matthew 25:41-46 in relation with John 15:2:“Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: † 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’ 44 “Then they also will answer Him, a saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (Matthew 25:41-46, Orthodox Study Bible). Therefore the works of faith are necessary for salvation which is clearly stated in James 2:24:,,You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.“ (James 2:24, Orthodox Study Bible). The works of faith that are done in synergism with God’s grace and doing of which is necessary for salvation (John 15:2 in relation with Matthew 25:41-46) are the ones referred to in James 2:24 as necessary for justification. Therefore man is justified not by faith alone but also with the works of faith but not in the sense thet they add something to Christ's Redemptive Sacrifice because that is impossible since they are done in synergism with God ‘s grace without which they are impossible to do (1 Cor.15:10 in relation with John 15:5) and so are Christ's merits (John 15:5). As far as I know Methodism accepts the synergism regarding the works of faith but still considers them as only sanctifying man and necessary for justification which is in contradiction with James 2:24 in relation with John 15:2. As the works of faith that are impossible to do without God's grace, are necessary for justification (James 2:24) and salvation (John 15:2), one is not saved when he or she has come to believe but is being saved through his or her whole life because the works of faith are done until a believer dies. The works that are not necessary for salvation are the works of the law:,,Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. †“ (Romans 3:20, Orthodox Study Bible); ,,I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.“ (Galatians 2:21); ,,You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.“ (Galatians 5:4). It is said to the Gentiles that the grace and faith are gifts of God and not of works:,,For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, † 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.“ (Ephesians 2:8-10, Orthodox Study Bible). But the works here refer to the works of a believer prior to his coming to believe and the meaning is that faith is a gift and so is not conditioned by the works one has done before coming to believe. The wrong Protestant understanding of the works of faith shows that the Holy Spirit is not received by the believers just by faith because He is the Spirit of truth (John 15:26) and where He is, there cannot be any wrong teachings. Therefore He is received by the believers through the prayer of the priesthood with apostolic succession like He was received at first through the prayer of the apostles:,,Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, † 15 who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16 For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. † 17 Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.“ (Acts 8:14-17, Orthodox Study Bible). Therefore, although all believers are holy and royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:5,9), there is a distinction between laymen and priesthood as priesthood is a gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:17, 28 in relation with 1 Peter 5:1-2). Hence salvation is in the historical Church with her priesthood with apostolic succession, wherefore the priesthood is a gift from God that is given through the laying on of hands and prayer since the time of the apostles, wherefore the apostolic succession has divine origin. And as the Spirit of Truth is only in the Church, the apostolic teaching is preserved intact only in the Church. Why the Church in which salvation is possible is only the Eastern Orthodox Church would probably be another topic.

Disagree but loved your explanation.

As an Anglo-Catholic, you made some good points. I've been trying to say some of that for a while. The Episcopal Church has stopped seeing itself as a Protestant Church and started seeing itself as "Catholic Lite", or Roman Catholicism "without the guilt". It's almost like a reversed version of the "Anglican" Ordinariate, while the Ordinariate sheep-steals conservative Anglicans, woke Episcopalians sheep-steal liberal Roman Catholics. And in the end, the liberal faction of the Episcopal Church defines itself more by what it's not than by what it is, standing for nothing at all. I'm reminded of when I took confirmation class at a liberal Episcopal church, we got this lecture about how the Bible "contradicts" itself and how it's not infallible. Well, if we don't believe in Papal infallibility, and we don't believe that the Bible is infallible, then how do we know what is true about God? They didn't answer me, they thought I was taking up too much time with my questions. . So much for the "thinking man's church!" Although, it must be noted that Luther did not leave the Roman Catholic Church willingly, he was kicked out after trying to reform it from within. I must admit jumping to the ACNA is very tempting, but as of now I stay in the Episcopal Church (at a different Parish, of course), because if I left, that would be like surrendering to the liberal faction of the church. There would be one less pesky conservative in the way of them, allowing them to further destroy the church. As Anglicanism is protestant, it's equally catholic, so we should hesitate to break fellowship as often as the other protestants do. What made me become Anglican was how united it was, even the ACNA collaborates with the orthodox faction of TEC. Meanwhile, the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod clergy won't interact with any of the 40(!) other American Lutheran bodies with a 10 foot poll. I don't want 40 isolated Anglican denominations in one country, and I doubt God does either.

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he should desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”-St. Cyprian of Carthage (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]

Good stuff ! Dig our heels in and stand firm. Sola Scriptura. Why ? Because God said so. Pray the Lord continues to work in and through us.

Im Irish catholic personally.

Amazing. As someone who is about to the point of leaving the United Methodist Church, even though my church voted to leave the denomination, there are just too many open paths for us to slip up and follow men instead of scripture. I have been attending an online weekly bible study with an Anglican Church and have felt more at home with the body of Christ than I have for a decade or so. I think this is the Holy Ghost pulling me back to the real truth. Sola scriptura. God's peace brother!

This was a very thoughtful response to C. Wagner, I appreciated the video. My only comment would be that you have offered in your three points a very “minimalist” definition of what it means to be “Protestant,” so minimalist that “Protestantism” can simply be reduced to “rejecting the errors of the medieval Catholic Church (indulgences) and rejecting the supremacy of the Pope (especially post-V1).” Such a mi we nimalist position, in my view, does not explain why I as an AngloCatholic must reject the label “Catholic” and embrace only the label “Protestant.” The Via Media, it seems, remains upheld. Towards the end of the video, however, you juxtapose “liberalism” in the Church with “true Protestantism.” Even if I do (with all charity) disagree with you on these issues, I still do not see how embracing “true Protestantism” (ie sola scriptura and sola gratia/total depravity) would necessarily mean rejection of the liberal tendency. After all, the birth of historical-critical hermeneutics as the “best” means to understand what Scripture “really says” is a liberal Protestant development. A trad Roman Catholic would say that the magisterium/tradition of the Catholic faith is opposed to liberalism (“modernism” being condemned as a heresy and all) and that a canonical (ie informed by tradition and the magesterium) hermeneutics is superior to a historical-critical hermeneutics. Sola scriptura, after all, can lead to many difficult positions (like a defense of slavery as biblical), especially since sola scriptura is typically associated with a “literal” or “plain sense” hermeneutics. A canonical hermeneutics can avoid such problems and account for necessary developments in the Christian faith. In short, I do not see how “Protestantism” is by definition opposed to liberalism, or even if embracing this kind of Protestantism is necessarily desirable. But again, this was a very well produced and thought out video, and I do feel that as an AngloCatholic I must not hide or try to explain away the Protestant element. We are Protestants, and it does nobody any good to pretend that we aren’t

So...instead of polarizing/offending claims to be either Catholic or Orthodox or Protestant or Evangelical....why not the option of confessing to be simply BIBLICALLY APOSTOLIC!!!!!!!

All that tragically and herecticalky happened after his death was spearheaded by Cramner and the young boy king Edward.

As a baptised Catholic (as an infant) , I love your explanation of this facet of our great Christian Church. Live and let live.

👍

Read Richard Hooker. To me Anglican distinctives are bishops, Apostolic Succession, and Cranmer's book of Common Prayer. Pax Christi.

First!

Indeed SCRIPTURE is the TRUTH!

@New Kingdom Media If only that which is biblically justified can necessarily belong to a Christian's faith, then this claim would logically also have to be found in the Bible itself, otherwise it could not be made, at least according to this line of argument. But this is not the case, indeed, it cannot be the case, because the biblical canon itself was only created when the individual books had already been written for a long time and the Christian faith had been handed down by other means, including through other writings. Thus sola scriptura is inconsistent. Certainly you are of a different opinion. But how do you substantiate this?

Anglo-Catholics confuse and blur the lines on our Protestantism, that’s the problem

Any genuine “Anglican” would equate Scripture with the Codex Amiatinus, produced in Jarrow or Monkwearmouth about 700 AD. Add on the Book of Baruch and translate it into English, and we have the Douai-Rheims Bible. Any comments? Amiatinus is actually the oldest complete codex still in one piece.

Selling indulgences in the 21st century? Hardly. Luther and his fellow reformers did not understand the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist because they did not understand that the Sacrifice of Calvary transcends space and time. And they did not understand the Semitic concept of memory - the concept in the New Testament, which means bringing a past event into the present. So the Eucharist is a re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary, that unique event in space and time, in our own space and time. As I understand it, the Articles of Religion are not binding on clergy or lay people in any church in the Anglican Communion. So it is somewhat problematic to talk about "Anglican theology" when no Anglican is obliged to accept the only commonly agreed statement of theology.

Any genuine “Anglican” would equate Scripture with the Codex Amiatinus, produced in Jarrow or Monkwearmouth about 700 AD. Add on the Book of Baruch and translate it into English, and we have the Douai-Rheims Bible. Any comments?

...Faith.

Unfortunately, protestantism and Lutheranism is a slippery slope. I don't know about the Anglican Chuch in New Zealand, but in the USA, the ECUSA is in full communion with some patrts f the Lutheran Church, but there are parts of the Lutheran church which are not in communion with each other. Then, alas, the English and the Germans have had a few wars. Catholicism is also a slippery slope. I am downstream from the Union of Utrecht, the Old Catholic Church, which is in full communion witht the ECUSA.

The Anglican church in Canada is dying and the reason is exactly what you talked about. It no longer teaches or follows scripture.

I would argue that the inclusion of humans who are non-hetero normative into the sacramental rites given to the majority is an example of the Holy Ghost at work.

As a scholar of the English Reformation, who is writing a biography of John Hooper, I agree with you wholeheartedly until the last section regarding sola Scriptura. As Calvin understood in his principle of accommodation, God speaks to us in Scripture according to the understandings and contexts through which we're able to understand it. This is why we now believe slavery to be wrong where it wasn't seen that way in earlier biblical interpretation. The same is true when it comes to same-sex relationships, which were not understood in biblical times as we do today, especially with regard to the existence of sexual orientations. To insist that your reading of the Bible is the correct one and all others disregard its truths is no different than a pope declaring that only his interpretation is the correct one and so all must follow it to be doctrinally sound. Spong is an easy target but hardly typical. I know of no Anglican or Episcopal Church that disregards Scripture. Mine certainly doesn't. We wrestle with its meaning just as Christians have done throughout history. Your solution to the fracturing of the Anglican communion is actually the opposite of what should happen. There needs to be some understanding that one orthodoxy on social and cultural issues will never prevail in a changing world, and trying to insist that one can will only fuel dissension. (There has never been a static, orthodoxy regarding sexuality...ever.) Even Luther proclaimed at Worms that he could not go against conscience. The rest of your presentation is spot on. Anglican theology IS Protestant as the Thirty-Nine Articles make clear. Anglo-Catholics and the Oxford Movement have distorted its historical foundations. Many today have turned it into a superstition that rests largely on including elements that they like about Catholic ceremony and ritual, without realizing or caring about its doctrinal underpinnings. And so it stands to reason that there is often little interest in biblical learning. But works theology (including prayers for the dead), and clerical sacramental power are not part of authentic Anglicanism. And yes, it does most certainly matter.

As an old Reformed high churchman, I’m stuck between your low-church evangelicalism and Christian Wagner’s Tractarian tendency. Even though I can in good faith subscribe to the Canons of Dort, I completely disagree with your (intentional) collapsing the distinction between justification by faith alone and salvation by faith alone.

The term protestantism is, to be fair, a poor term in terms of conveying the theological distinctives of a tradition, but it refers to those traditions which are heirs to the Reformation. WIth that standar understanding fo the term, quiblling about whether Anglicanism is protestant is just silliness, I don't care how anglo catholic you are

I don't care if Anglicanism is called Protestant because it was conjured from an English King who wanted permission to divorce. Anglicized Catholicism. I can see so many ways in which it's Catholic in the worse way like praying to Mary.

Why would anyone consider themselves Anglican and Catholic? That sounds absurd 🧐

What type of Lutheranism are we actually in communion with? Tough to understand this point since the LCA has dogmatically thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

Hello brother, love ya videos - just a note that wasn’t mentioned much at all, many of us in the Anglican Tradition “protest” the link to Martin Luther since the Anglican communion has moved away from the Antisemitism of Martin Luther and his followers, as well as the disrespectful plagiarism of people such as Reuchlin. As many of us are learnt in Hebrew and the mystic side of Judaic thought, it’s very hard to continue to acknowledge and associate with Martin Luther in the modern age. It is also important to mention the direct theological differences between much Calvinist thought and modern Anglican theology, especially in regards to predestination and ministry in general (as a side note, as Calvinism was referred to often in this video). As you have acknowledged, we are constantly evolving and reforming - a protest and reformation away from Martin Luther for reasons stated above is very important for many of us in the tradition. - Richard De Vera, TSSF.