Really interesting debate with a baptist on apostolic succession

I am a fan of the irenic and calm approach in the Youtube videos of the baptist theologian Gavin Ortlund... We Anglicans don't have a lot of prominent voices on Youtube right now, probably because of all the internal reconstruction going on these days... So it came as a nice surprise when I found on his channel an Anglican theologian having a respectful debate on apostolic succession... Do you guys know about this gentleman, Jonathan Sheffield?

 

Liked it, but not a video for anyone with a short attention span. My take on the debate:?
Stephen Boyce is right in not taking sides:
Dr Gavin is right in his approach to the possibility of Apostolic Succession and it's value:
Johnathan Sheffield is partly right in that Apostolic Succession exists, but, he fails to fully recognise the autonamous and sovereign role of The Holy Spirit in conferring Apostolic succession upon Church leaders.

Q. Who laid hands upon Cornelius and his household before he or they received the Holy Spirit?

Q. Is it remotely possible for anyone to be in an apostolic succession without having previously received a baptism in The Holy Spirit?

Q. If Cornelius and his household received the baptism in the Holy Spirit without any laying on of hands, why is it deemed essential in extending apostolic succession? What scriptural warrant is there for this restriction?

Q. Can only men be part of any apostolic succession, and why?

 

What I like about these debates about apostolic succession, is that they successfully pull the topic away from Romanist implications and tendencies

As is known, the Roman doctrine of apostolic succession carries with it some pretty gnarly and un-Catholic aspects, which in the past caused some good Biblical-centered people to view the doctrine itself in a bad light... And one of the achievements of Anglican theology has been to recover the Catholic purity of this doctrine, without any Romanist brambles and barnacles attached to it

 

What I have learned from the debate is that the Anglican Church seems to have preserved the notion of Apostolic Succession within the leadership of the Church without accepting the Romish notion that the mechanics of it must be physical, i.e. whatever is 'passed on' is 'passed on' by the physical laying on of hands by someone who could prove themselves to be already exclusively IN an Apostolic Succession. This has to be nonsense because there are insufficient records to substatiate such an assumption right back to all and each of the Apostles. Spiritually speaking though it is entirely possible that the Church of Christ has grown, developed and expanded under the influence of the Holy Spirit in such a way as to have ensured an Apostolic Succession.

It is however, possible for God to 'Raise up stones to praise him' without any intervention, ceremony or human agency whatever, and it is God who ordains, not men. Therefore there is probably no absolute physical necessity for there to be a physical aspect to Apostolic Succession, as the RC Denomination seems to insist.
.

 

I believe I heard Sheffield say (in his answer to Gavin's first question) in Anglicanism it is viewed that a sacrament performed by a person outside of apostolic succession would be valid but not in order. I was under the impression that the Anglican view would be, the sacrament is invalid. If it's merely 'out of order,' wouldn't this imply that a non-priest conducting a Eucharistic consecration would not render the Eucharist invalid? I wonder if Sheffield spoke inaccurately?

 

I think it is a matter of some dispute among the theologians (but I could be wrong), in that since it is God who grants the sacrament, not the priest, that it would be possible he might grant it to those who ministers who are self-appointed and not part of his hierarchy...Because his goal is salvation above all

However it is unknown to us who (or if any) of the people in those situations do get granted that gift from God... it is entirely unknown; whereas in the normal order of his Church, there are no doubts for anyone involved

 

I think the relevant citation is from Article XXVI of the 39 Articles, "OF THE UNWORTHINESS OF THE MINISTERS, WHICH HINDERS NOT THE EFFECT OF THE SACRAMENT":

 

We know where the church stands but we don't know how far it extends.

 

According to what is written, correct.