Hello! I was wondering if anyone here knows of some traditional Anglican apologists online that have a website or youtube channel. Something like the Anglican equivalent of Catholic Answers or Church Militant. Feel free to share your favourite Anglican apologists in this thread
One problem might be with the theological diversity that exists in Anglicanism. Other than Jewel's Apology of the Church of England and some other early works which justify the break with Rome, there is little consensus regarding Anglican beliefs or practices. What I mean to say is, that sites such as "Catholic Answers" can address specific Roman Catholic teachings and attempt to defend them. The diversity of Anglican theology makes such a site problematic.
I don't know if that's true anymore. It would probably be the case in the 1990s and 2000s, when we were at a low point in the Western Provinces (Africa and the rest of the World has kept classical Anglican theology, and I have recently gone overseas and seen it for myself). Now that the Anglican world is re-aligning to give room for orthodox expressions of our faith, many more sources for Anglican orthodoxy are beginning to appear. Anglican TV, VirtueOnline. Anglican Pastor. More pertinent to this thread though, I would recommend these two podcasts: Word & Table: http://anglicanpastor.com/listen-to...liturgical-and-sacramental-christian-worship/ Anglican Audio: https://anglican.audio/
I understand your point, Stalwart, but there are no dogmatic Anglican positions on baptismal theology, eucharistic theology, soteriology, eschatology, etc.
Not really the point of the thread, but I'm not sure where you've got that, as the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the teachings of the Divines make clear statements on all those. Anyway I'm out for a bit, have fun everyone!
I'd like to see this, too. All I find when Googling for 'Anglican Apologetics', is mostly sites by Orthodox and Roman Catholics trying to put down Anglicanism, which, I am starting to believe, does have as much, if not more credibility than those two (no offense to adherents on this forum, that's just my opinion). Anglicanism is underrepresented in apologia, and that is sad, since it's idea of unity between catholic-protestant doctrine and tradition is overall pretty reasonable. You can probably find more sites for Episcopalian churches and teachings, but I of course, lean more towards the traditional Anglican view and have to kindly disagree with some of the views held nowadays by the Episcopal Church.
I highly recommend the following: http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/p/laymens-guide-to-thirty-nine-articles.html http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/p/fr-harts-essays-on-classic-anglicanism.html http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2008/10/odd-couple.html Peter Toon's works on Anglican identity, the formularies, etc.: http://newscriptorium.com/toon-collection
The Pulpit Commentary series was edited by Anglicans and features a somewhat eclectic range of late 19th century perspectives on the Biblical text. That is to say: the quest for the historical Jesus, Markan primacy, the superiority of the Critical Text, and such other hallmarks of early liberal Biblical scholarship are accepted as the cutting edge of contemporary scholarship. It can all seem a bit dated now but these volumes are not totally unreadable.
An example of the diversity of Anglican theology would be interpretations of the 39 Articles of Religion. Some give them a Calvinist slant, others an Arminian, and still others a Roman Catholic. The number of books written on them is legion, and anyone of these views is perfectly acceptable for an Anglican to accept. Bicknell's is my favorite and it isn't even listed in the following list: https://prydain.wordpress.com/resources-on-the-thirty-nine-articles-of-religion/
I mean that's like the issue in Roman Catholicism today. Some think Vatican 2 changed doctrine, some think it didn't. That's the danger with the liberty of the press isn't it? No one is stopping you from putting your own spin on something people already thought was settled, and publishing an utterly errant interpretation of Church documents. So too, Catholics after Vatican 2 no longer restrict their press, and all kinds of insanities have poured forth. To some the new Mass is a danger, to some it is wonderful. Two, three, five competing interpretations of the same doctrines, the same events, exist. Which one does a Roman Catholic read? Generally they read whichever perspective already accords with their own view, and I suppose some Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics try to read our Formularies in that fashion too. But that's wrong. You read the document in the spirit of its laws, not in light of your wishes. According to that criterion there is a proper interpretation of the 39 Articles, and the rest of the doctrines, and all the other commentaries are wrong. The general principle is, the closer in time the book is to its subject, the more accurate it is to the spirit of its subject. If you're reading something from the 20th century or 19th century that puts forth a new idea, it is almost 100% likely to be wrong and spiritually dangerous for you to read, as we see here, falling into the Sin of Despair. And anyway, this is not what the person was asking for in this thread.
The thread was about Anglican apologetics. The reality is that there isn't much of a dogmatic nature to write apologies for. The 39 articles are deliberately ambiguous to appeal to as many parties as possible. When the Calvinist faction attempted to add the Lambeth articles that were more clearly Calvinist in nature, the Queen stopped them. As his majesty Charles I required, the 39 articles are to be taken in their literal and grammatical sense. Ergo, any "interpretation" is simply the author's opinion, regardless of when it was written.
Well let's see here, let's start from just the most obvious stuff, -how many kinds of Revelation are there? (we say two: Special and Natural; fideists and the Reformed say only the Special) -as Special Revelation, is Scripture the Word of God? (we say yes, Karl Barth etc say no) -is there a second source of Special Revelation along with Scripture? (we say no, RCC/Orthodox say yes) -how many books are in the Scriptural Canon? (we are clear, the Orthodox as a whole don't really know) -is Tradition a second source of Special Revelation? (we say no, Catholics say yes, Orthodox say YES) -do we honor tradition when based on Scripture? (we say yes, evangelicals say no) -should the Church Fathers be uniquely upheld? (we say yes, evangelicals and Catholics say no) -are Creeds doctrinal? (we say yes, evangelicals say no) -should the Church pray via liturgical prayer, set formulaic worship? (we say yes, evangelicals say no) -should the liturgy of the Church be done in the vernacular? (we say yes, the Russian Orthodox say no) -can music be used in the liturgy? (we say yes, the Presbyterians and the Orthodox say no) -do sacraments exist? (we say yes, evangelicals say no) -does baptism make you regenerate? (our BCP and Catechisms say yes, the Reformed tradition says no) -can you baptize infants? (we say yes, evangelicals say no) -do we consume Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament? (we say yes, evangelicals say no) -in what form do we consume it? (we say spiritually, Catholics say physically, Orthodox have no idea) -should Communion be done in both kinds? (we say yes, Catholics historically say no) -can the unbaptized take Communion? (we say no, evangelicals say yes) -does Confirmation exist, and convey grace? (we say yes, Orthodox and Evangelicals say no, effectively) -do the Ministers of the Church have power to absolve sins? (our BCP says yes, the Reformed say no) -should Christians seek absolution from the Church, and how? (for us mainly in public and sometimes in private; for the Reformed, never) -must Christians kneel when they worship God? (we say yes, 60-70% of the Christian world today says no) -how many orders of Ministers are in the Church? (we say 3: deacons/priests/bishops; Catholics say 7; Reformed say 2; evangelicals say 0) -should bishops exist and rule the Church? (we say yes, the Reformed and evangelicals say no) -should clergy wear special vestments? (we say yes, evangelicals say no) -should matter (buildings, etc) be set aside and consecrated? (we say yes, evangelicals say no) -should holidays, feast days and fast days exist? (we say yes, evangelicals say no) -is man justified by faith? (we say yes, Catholics also now say yes?, Orthodox say no) -can the Church fall and need to be reformed? (we say yes, Catholics also beginning to say yes?, the Orthodox say no) -is the Church 'witness and keeper of Holy Writ', Article XX? (we say yes, the Reformed and evangelicals say no) -does the Church have power to decide on doctrine, Article XX? (we say yes, the Reformed and evangelicals say no) I think I could populate that list at least twice over, if I had the time now. And it doesn't even cover the countless cultural artifacts that makes Anglicanism uniquely beautiful, such as Anglican chant, polyphonic and hymnal musical tradition, our history of philosophers and scientists, our tradition of art and architecture, our unique Prayer Book Tradition, classical Anglican education, our unique apostolic location between the excess of Catholics and the Puritans; and much more. It is in fact one of the richest traditions, if not the richest single tradition of Christianity.