Great video overall! Just a minor correction on the Lutheran position of Baptism that may be important for someone parcing out these traditions: Lutherans (at least confessional ones like the LCMS) don’t view Baptism as being not necessary for salvation. That FAQ that you pulled from the LCMS’ website says as much- that Baptism is normatively necessary, but not *absolutely* necessary (i.e if someone dies before they’re able to be baptized, they’re not damned for it). What we hold to in this is analogous to Rome’s position of “Baptism of desire” and although I haven’t heard any Lutheran theologians use that exact terminology it seems to line up with what we believe.
Since i see someone already talked on the Lutheran correction, I'll deal with some points on your Anglican history. Ignoring arguments that the English church traces is history to the Insular church, which predates at least the Council of Nicea, and possibly even to the first century as a matter of legacy and lineage. As a matter of history, the Roman church did not officially break relations with English curch until the reign of Elizabeth. All Henry did was revoke the pope's authority over the English church, aside from that very little actually changed theologically owing to Henry being, disputes about the legality of his marriages aside, a faithful catholic. It is not until the brief reign of his son, mostly die to the influence of Thomas Cranmer as the king never reached adulthood. Cranmer is seen by many as the true font of the English reformation, with waves back and forth between various factions occurring for decades before the core beliefs solidified. Apologies for the long reply, suffice it to say Cranmer is the real progenitor (though far from the only influence) of Anglicanism, not Henry. Edit: hopefully this does not come off as combative, i enjoyed the video, i just believe you could be more accurate in your characterization of some things. God bless
Thanks for the MASSIVE info dump! You did not AT ALL come across as combative, but I would've been just as accepting of the information you provided if it were. I absolutely agree that my image of Anglicanism wasn't the most accurate possible explanation of its history in this instance. I did not intend it to be a serious explanation, but rather a hyper-simplified setup. I am planning to (eventually) produce an in-depth series on the important distinctions and histories of each of the major denominational expressions of Christianity, and I absolutely intend to explore the extremely important influence that Cranmer had over the shaping of foundational Anglican doctrine. Thanks for continuing to support the channel. God Bless.
@CatechesisCraft I appreciate the cordial response. It's one of those denominational nitpicks that bugs the well-informed. Saying "Henry VIII started Anglicanism" is like when someone says, "lutherans believe in Consubstantiation" or "Roman Catholics worship Mary", it makes me physically cringe. Keep up the work, I pray the channel does well!
Great video overall! Just a minor correction on the Lutheran position of Baptism that may be important for someone parcing out these traditions: Lutherans (at least confessional ones like the LCMS) don’t view Baptism as being not necessary for salvation. That FAQ that you pulled from the LCMS’ website says as much- that Baptism is normatively necessary, but not *absolutely* necessary (i.e if someone dies before they’re able to be baptized, they’re not damned for it). What we hold to in this is analogous to Rome’s position of “Baptism of desire” and although I haven’t heard any Lutheran theologians use that exact terminology it seems to line up with what we believe.
Great correction! Thank you for the comment!
Since i see someone already talked on the Lutheran correction, I'll deal with some points on your Anglican history.
Ignoring arguments that the English church traces is history to the Insular church, which predates at least the Council of Nicea, and possibly even to the first century as a matter of legacy and lineage. As a matter of history, the Roman church did not officially break relations with English curch until the reign of Elizabeth. All Henry did was revoke the pope's authority over the English church, aside from that very little actually changed theologically owing to Henry being, disputes about the legality of his marriages aside, a faithful catholic.
It is not until the brief reign of his son, mostly die to the influence of Thomas Cranmer as the king never reached adulthood. Cranmer is seen by many as the true font of the English reformation, with waves back and forth between various factions occurring for decades before the core beliefs solidified.
Apologies for the long reply, suffice it to say Cranmer is the real progenitor (though far from the only influence) of Anglicanism, not Henry.
Edit: hopefully this does not come off as combative, i enjoyed the video, i just believe you could be more accurate in your characterization of some things. God bless
Thanks for the MASSIVE info dump! You did not AT ALL come across as combative, but I would've been just as accepting of the information you provided if it were. I absolutely agree that my image of Anglicanism wasn't the most accurate possible explanation of its history in this instance. I did not intend it to be a serious explanation, but rather a hyper-simplified setup. I am planning to (eventually) produce an in-depth series on the important distinctions and histories of each of the major denominational expressions of Christianity, and I absolutely intend to explore the extremely important influence that Cranmer had over the shaping of foundational Anglican doctrine.
Thanks for continuing to support the channel. God Bless.
@CatechesisCraft I appreciate the cordial response.
It's one of those denominational nitpicks that bugs the well-informed.
Saying "Henry VIII started Anglicanism" is like when someone says, "lutherans believe in Consubstantiation" or "Roman Catholics worship Mary", it makes me physically cringe.
Keep up the work, I pray the channel does well!