Relatively new Anglican! ACNA (Arkansas) Absolutely beautiful liturgy and people. Christian for over 42 years. The liturgy carries me along and I’m learning the language of it and the charisms also. Thanks be to God ✝️
I am a founding member of Holy Cross Anglican Cathedral which is the arch cathedral of the ACNA. Archbishop Beach was my parish priest before he became a Bishop of our diocese and then Archbishop. We are working hard in GAFCON and with the Global South. Together we represent 85% of Anglicans worldwide
However, there are unresolved dangerously major problems here. Some ACNA parishes accept women "priests" and others absolutely won't. The prayer books used vary from the 1929, the ACNA's 2019 to the theologically heretical 1979 American parody of the BCP. Other congregations worship almost extemporaneously. With this lack of consensus on such major issues, sooner or later, the ACNA will implode and divide into differing factions or denominations. The ACNA is, unfortunately, (like the Episcopal Church) trying to satisfy too many radically different and irreconcilable theological positions on which no compromise is possible thereby sowing the seeds of its own destruction.
@@josephr.gainey2079 The ACNA is newly formed so give it some time to find its balance. Best to pray and not be discouraged. The Spirit will work in our midst in the prayers of the people.
@@josephr.gainey2079 Yes - there seem to be alot of open questions. How do you deal with the major theological differences between the more Reformed churches and the more Anglo-Catholic congregations? How can you have women priests in some dioceses and have this practice condemned in others? I don't know how these get resolved, but I pray they do. I love the depth of orthodox Anglicanism and the richness of its foundational documents.
I have been to a RC Mass in a church that had walls made of hessian in the Kaisut desert and to a Mass in a Cathedral and the structure of the service was the same. Thats the beauty of the Roman Catholic Church.
In the eyes of men, not in the eyes of God. The real Church of Christ is people who actually follow Jesus and live holy, that is what God consider beautiful and His own.
I'm looking forward to this. As a person who is still (sort of) in the Church of England, I'd appreciate it if you could ask Rev. Calvin if he thinks the idea of staying put within the established church to try and be an orthodox influence is a realistic idea. I'm coming from the position of a lay person who began the process of ordination discernment, but postponed it due to LLF.
YES - it is a very sound thing to do (as I am also doing) - to stay put as a true conservative, traditional Anglican Christian inside the CofE - to refuse to leave - and to fight (in a refined Christ-like way) the fakery and wokery of the dreadful forces seemingly now in charge of a sinking ship. I am very tempted to flee to the GAFCON - as I agree with them - but I think some of us should stay, obstinately, for Christ of course, right HERE. May God Bless and guide you in whatever you do.
Calvin Robinson is a super hero priest - There needs to be, " 1 " anglican church worldwide. Priest and Bishops need to get out into the community, - no whining about this society. Go out fullfill the call of the Great Commission. A sinner to say the least is someone we have failed to save - the gospel says that everytime a sinner repents the angels rejoice. We should be making the angels make so much noise they can be heard all over the world.
Richard Hooker was also a Reformer after the Cranmer period and the 39 Articles. He was a brilliant Anglican theologian that corrected or tempered Cranmer's ideas. Catholic practices, signs and symbols are adiaphora -- things indifferent.
Problem there is nobody agrees on what list of items constitute adiaphora. One man's adiaphora is another man's proxima fide dogma and another man's discipline and another man's anathema.
Actually the King has no say on it, whatever he personally thinks about. Parliament has that say... But hardly a strong majority will vote these days for a Roman Catholic view sort of Church or even a traditional Anglican way approving Parliament. Forget. The most you'd get would have been disestablishment and disendowment for CofE, followed by tax imposition on the traditional Church that emerged and possible establishment and endowment of any liberal Church that would ask such a prospect to replace CofE as established Church.
@@nunagoras If the King declared his will and good pleasure openly many would follow. Do Patriotic People generally go against the will and good pleasure of their Sovereign Lord no matter what the Constitution and Laws say? Having said this it is my belief that the Church of England is beyond a point of no return. In other words neither the Bishops, the King or the House of Comons or the House of Lords or the Laity can save the Church of England even if they wanted to with all their soul. The Church of England will not be an institution 100 years from now. The Church of England has no future only a past. If any of the Treasures of the Church of England will be saved it will be because Orthodox and or Roman Catholic Bishops will step in and actively save parts of her Liturgy and Spirituality, even independent Anglican Churches will hopefully have a part in this. However, the Church of England as an institution is finished.
You totally omitted the Continuing Anglican movement which since 1977 has witnessed and warned against what they prophetic predicted (correctly) the disaster that is official Anglicanism. The response they met from Episcopalians was "Just because we violated Scripture and ordained women doesn't mean we'll ... [fill in the blank]." WRONG! It is a slippery slope. This group may be small and have problems (such as its division into various denominations, usually based on ego and personality rather than actual meaningful theological differences), but we must give them their due. They warned us as to what was coming and very few of us listened. We're paying for that major mistake today!
Perhaps there will be another realignment within North American Anglicanism at some point with the older continuing churches and those traditional congregations in ACNA who steadfastly oppose WO
I like Calvin, but what he is calling "sola scriptura" is actually a modern popular misunderstanding of sola scriptura that the reformers never claimed. Sola scriptura means that the scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice. That doesn't mean we don't value the fathers or the role of the church in interpreting the scriptures, or that we don't value the role of tradition. It simply means that in the scriptures we have the standard by which all these other authorities are governed. Scripture is the norm which norms all other norms. It is a sure deposit of the ancient faith and it is the only authority we call the word of God.
The way I view it, it is the result of RC corruption of the Tradition. When the tradition was corrupted, there needed to be a way to measure it to see if it is valid. If the Tradition matches what Scripture says, there is no conflict between the two. It is only when there is a division between the two, that is where it comes in.
1) The pre-confessional reformers did not agree on what sola scriptura meant or entailed. You only see an agreement after the confessions of faith and that agreement barely lasts 100 years before people again challenge what sola scriptura actually entails. 2) The overhemeling majority of modern day Protestants define sola scriptura the way Rev. Cal does. 3) The traditional confessional conservative Lutherans, Anglicans and Presbyterians are now 500 years later the very small minority within contemporary Protestantism. I say none of this to attack you but rather to show that Rev. Cal is simply reflecting the current view. Before the 2nd Great Awakening you would have had a point. But even during that short period, they still did not agree on sola scriptura but had varying views on tradition and Church authority. For centuries now Protestants haven't agreed on what sola scriptura entails. And Protestants also reject all the so called Radical Reformers who were also there almost at the start too who in fact never accepted the Gavin Ortlund view of sola scriptura. And many of those theologians like Sebastian Franck and Huldrick Zwingli were heavily educated on the Church Fathers.
@@mamaliamalak7825The problem for many former Protestants like myself is that this theory fails to convince us because we know so many men of high intelligence, good will and strong acuity over Greek and Hebrew who still can't agree on core doctrines. Let's be clear- that does not therefore mean Catholicism or her claims are true or win by default. That has to be demonstrated and proven. Maybe Catholicism is still false. But what it does do for many converts like myself, is that it convinces us the Protestant theory cant work. We know too many educated Protestants of good will who disagree on very fundamental issues which if the theory of sola scriptura is true in our conscience tells us this should not be the case. After all the Greek and exegesis and word study and hermeneutics we should eventually be able to form an agreement at least of some kind in salvic issues.
@@Theosis_and_prayer 1. Sola Scriptura isn’t a doctrine per se, like the Trinity or Incarnation. It shouldn’t surprise you that there are variances in how people understand or employ the basic principle. It’s more of a re-valuing of Scripture prompted by a crisis of the 16th century. Specifically, the convergence of the medieval corruption of the Gospel (i.e., indulgences, the treasury of merit, purgatory, exaggerated papal claims, withholding the cup from the laity, forced religious vows, etc.) and the availability of Greek and Hebrew texts that allowed the reformers access to the sources of Christian doctrine (Ad Fontes!). In that context, the discontinuity between Roman practice and scriptural teaching became unavoidably obvious. So, the presenting question is where can a Christian turn to find authentic Gospel teaching, the teaching of the Apostles? To the Roman Magisterium? Or to the sure deposit of Apostolic faith as found in the ancient texts? Having witnessed the medieval system, they chose to return to the Holy Scriptures. So, “Sola Scriptura” became a rallying cry or slogan to promote a return to Holy Scripture as a measure of Christian doctrine. It was never intended to be a doctrine per se to which everyone needed to have the same articulation. 2. I hope it doesn’t really surprise you that popular street level “definitions” of Sola Scriptura are all over the map. You could say that about just about every Christian doctrine these days. This is not unlike how a recent Pew Research poll found that over 60% of American Catholics view the Mass as a mere symbol. So, on that evidence, am I to conclude that the Catholic Church no longer holds to the Real Presence? No, I don’t think so. Calvin Robinson is a young recent seminary graduate and a newly ordained deacon. He would do well to delve more deeply into Protestant history and thought. He’s got a few blind spots. 3. In North America, Lutherans, Anglicans, and the Reformed certainly lost ground during the revivalist movements. But Christ’s Church, all of it, continues. Sola Scriptura may never hold sway in the same way that it did among the 16th century reformers, but you can see its effects today among all the Churches, even Rome. When’s the last time you bought an indulgence? Does your parish have a weekly or even more frequent Mass? Do they offer you the cup? Does your congregation sing? Do you own a Bible? Do you believe that by God’s grace Jesus in his death and resurrection has atoned for your sins? My guess is that your answers would not differ substantially from the average Protestant of any stripe. So, for that you can thank the reformers and Sola Scriptura.
@mj6493 You're not understanding. Nobody is saying your doctrinal views are wrong - that's a separate question. Do you understand the difference? What we are saying is that you are wrong and deceptive in accusing Rev. Calvin of misrepresenting sola scriptura. Your anger should not be directed towards Rev. Calvin but to your fellow Prots you say are in error. It's not Rev. Calvin's fault if that's the doctrine of sola scriptura the vast majority of contemporary Prots hold to why blame him? You should be rebuking them. If they all believed in the unique and novel version of sola scriptura you hold onto, surely you understand Rev. Cal would be using that definition right? It's not reasonable for him to use the definition of the 1%. And your reference to RC are confused. As the online Protestant polemist TOP says, you can't compare the 2 regarding adherence to teaching bc Catholicism has an official dogmatic reference so you can objectively see what the official teaching is wheras Protestantism by its nature is diverse. That's not me saying that - but your own fellow conservative reformed Prots. Unless you want to ssy your the Pope of Protestantism and can define its dogams. But the fact you mentioned that means again you've missed the issue. It's not a defence of Catholicism but of Rev. Calvin (your fellow Protestant). You need to be more fair towards him. Another reason why the Protestant lies and tricks don't work on me is because I was a highly trained Protestant before I became a Christian.
I don't understand how unity can exist in a situation in which nobody has the final say. Christ has a kingdom, He is the king, He did not leave things without leadership in charge, in fact He spoke of the keys. I cannot understand how the keys can get tossed, the Blessed Sacrament can get tossed, all when He gave out the keys and said His body was real food. The Trinity is a hierarchy, marriage is designed as a hierarchy, all of nature and every organization has a hierarchy. How is it possible that God would leave man as the head in marriage and the King would not leave someone in charge? As for the reform, I would say it was more of a pick and choose of things Catholic, things were tossed according to rather dim lights in my opinion. Purgatory, which is a mercy, gets tossed, instead one is called to believe that uncle Fred was "saved" and will zoom into heaven, because, after all his flaws and perhaps a little excess drink, he was a good man, not perfect but good. Well, guess what, he is not perfect enough, not by a long shot. Hence the mercy of purgatory, as through a fire, as the scripture puts it. It is not a small thing that very important things are lost by lack of a leader with authority. Nowhere does it say the "leader" the guy with the keys is fabulous guy, Peter denied Christ 3 times, and as much as people crap on him for doing that, plenty of Christians deny Christ for some illicit sex, for money, for a career, and on and on. The key is repentance. God bless and peace to all.
Purgatory was developed during the Middle Ages, as I'm sure you know. The Church of the first millennium (prior to the great schism of AD 1054) had no such concept. Of course, the corrupt practice of indulgences developed swiftly after.
Purgatory can be found in the bible itself, which is a Catholic compendium of inspired scripture, without which no bibles would exist anywhere today. That is because the church pre-existed the bible by several hundred years, and it was that church from which all scripture comes, none other. The concept of praying for the can be found in Judaism, from which the church originally came. This can be found in the book of Maccabees. Additional mention is also found in the New Testament where one is saved bypassing through a fire. That is in reference to the needed cleansing prior to seeing God in the face, Purgatory is a mercy of God since few die perfect in every way so as to be able to look upon the perfect God. Jesus redeems by baptism, any sins we do after that need atonement or purification before seeing God. That may be done here on earth, but for most it will continue after death, hence the reference to passing through the fire in Corinthians. Teachings on purgatory existed all along. @@clivejames5058
@@johnjon1823 Why focus on Maccabees when you have the apostle Paul teaching us about Christ's promise to those who believe in HIM, which supersedes Maccabees - Read for instance Col 2: 13-14 - "When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having cancelled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross"
What is true tradition and true reason? Where do we go to find these? We go to Scripture. We ought to be ever reforming the church by the word of God into the shape of the apostolic faith once and for unto the saints.
Hope you ask the simple question,” Calvin,do you believe the Roman Catholic Church preach a false Gospel?” The chances you ask this simple question is remote. He may direct you to Galatians chapter 1?
..as Calvin said,”spreading a false Gospel. “ Does Calvin believe the Roman Catholic Church is “ spreading a false Gospel?” Would be interesting what his reply would be.
“The Reformation was not anti Catholic” .Agreed,it was to show the Roman Catholic Church was preaching a false Gospel. The Reformers were “Catholic” but rejected the RCC false Gospel.
From an Orthodox Christian perspective, there is not and never has been a unity in Faith among Anglicans. The puzzling issue of so-called churchmanship is simply incomprehensible to Orthodox Christians.
There is no hope in the pope. Romanism is mystery Babylon, the mother of harlots, drunk with the blood of the martyrs and saints of Jesus. Christ gave one sacrifice for sins, forever, never to be repeated and is our one great high priest and shepherd and bishop of our souls.
You should remember that the Anglican church was founded by a serial murderer and a serial adulterer. Henry VIII declared himself to be head of the church in England instead of the Pope and set about slaughtering all who opposed him. Elizabeth I was even worse. Priests had to go in hiding, and faithful Catholics who harboured them were killed with horrendous punishments. For instance Margaret Clitheroe was stripped naked in public, laid on the road, a door put on top of her, then heavy stones laid upon her so she was slowly squashed to death. Paradoxically, before the Reformation, Henry was given the title 'Defender of the Faith' which to this day coins of the realm are inscribed with Fid Def the Latin equivalent. It took centuries for Catholics to be allowed to practice their faith, provided any churches built were not in public view. All the ancient churches built by the Normans were handed over to the Anglicans and never returned (probably saving Catholics a huge amount of money in repairs!)
What did Mary do to earn the title "Bloody Mary?" Not to excuse, but doesn't her brutality create the context for the anti-Catholic reaction that occurred?
Yah but don’t get stuck there. The Anglican Church ⛪️ I’ve been going to for 13 years has been a great place for me to grow in my faith . Be encouraged to try an ACNA church. You won’t be disappointed.
@@crossvilleengineering1238 Elizabeth I did try mightily to bring peace between the two churches. She was in an almost impossible situation where there were many Catholics in the nobility and other positions of power and influence and the question of loyalty was paramount. She wanted coexistence but, sadly, never got it.
Catholics openly tried to assassinate Elizabeth 1st. She herself was prepared to be moderate and famously said 'I have no desire to make windows into men's souls' - but what do you do with bands of murderous Catholics setting up plot after plot?
Calvin ,”there salvation is at stake” . As long as they have an Alter Christus to give them their last rights before they go to purgatory,they will be ok.
Do you mean "rites"? "Rights" are what a citizen of a country is entitled to by law. Religious ceremonies or the unique customs of a denomination or a group (such as Anglo-Catholics) are called "rites." If the latter is what you mean, I would tend to agree with you.
The Church of England - later to become 'Anglicanism' - was 'under-girded' (according to the 16th-Century theologian, Richard Hooker) through its appeal to a form of 'trinity': Scripture, Tradition and Reason. Unfortunately, over the past century, there has arisen a large, dominant, 'cult' within the Church of England which wishes to abolish the 'Reason' section of that trinity; and rely solely on Scripture and Tradition. At its most extreme, the adherents of this cult practice 'sola scriptura', and appear to worship our scriptures: rather than the God the authors of those scriptures were attempting to say something about. This is NOT 'orthodox' Anglicanism: and Calvin Robinson does not represent 'orthodox' Anglicanism. He represents that large, and dominant, cult. Were there to be a full Council of the Church - such as that attempted by Vatican II, only more embracing - then this way of envisaging our scriptures (as the sole means of revelation) may well be exposed for what it is: a rival 'belief-system'.
Calvin Robinson,” There is so much in the RCC that is true 😂” How about the Council of Trent declaring that imputed righteousness is anathema? And the RCC still do. I could go on and on with examples the RCC have a false Gospel. But hey,as Calvin says ,there so much in the RCC that is true.😂
@marktodd1911 Mark,I could name Muslim teachings that would fall into your idea of “ traditions!” I could spend hours going through the false teachings of the RCC,but hey,it would probably fall of deaf ears. The book by James R White “ The Roman Catholic Controversy” is in my opinion the best book to explain the problem- even though as you say,we share common ground on some points,but there are crucial differences in our doctrines that cannot be ignored.
@marktodd1911 by the way,”producing one example of something you disagree with within Roman Catholicism. “ The heart of the matter is just vital,yet you dismiss it with “ one example” quote!! Come on.
@marktodd1911 the RCC must be embarrassed by the Marxist Pope in charge now,once he gets his henchmen in position ,what next? Warning people is the loving thing to do.
As someone who was Protestant before I became Christian, I actually agree with you - I don't think a Protestant can be consistent and claim that Catholics are brothers in Christ.
…”move towards Roman Catholicism or to the” East”….Calvin…”I think it’s a good thing.”😂 Calvin may be a “good speaker”,but when you scratch the surface,he is all over the place in his theological platform.
@@crossvilleengineering1238 Protestants all agree,salivation is by Grace alone,through Faith alone,in Christ alone,according to Scripture alone,for God’s Glory alone.Other issues are debates amongst Christians. Calvinists believe Regeneration precedes Faith. John 6:65,(Christ speaking) “No one can come to me unless the Father enables them.”
@@crossvilleengineering1238Catholics have created heresies even (not saying dispensationaliam is heresy, just error). The Apostle Paul complained about false teachers coming out of the churches he and the other apostles planted. Do they make Paul and the others wrong?
@@crossvilleengineering1238 heresy is when a belief can affect your salvation (e.g., a denial of the Trinity). Error is a non-essential idea that doesn't rise to the category of heresy (again, the example of dispensational belief vs other views.)
@@crossvilleengineering1238 Heresy would also include pelagianism, not just issues surrounding the Trinity. Doctrines that touch on salvation are included in the core issues that can affect a person's salvation. As for Baptists, my experience is limited to Reformed Baptist, which are orthodox in their beliefs. For a good discussion , I would recommend Gavin Ortlund's Theological Triage video. I think it's helpful for sorting out the crucial from the non-crucial doctrinal issues.
Calvin is NOT an orthodox Anglican. He flat out rejects Anglican doctrine as articulated in our Formularies. Sadly, he is a Ritualist who promotes idolatry. Those who follow him have forsaken the gospel just as the leftists have. Being a conservative is not enough.
Anglicanism for centuries has allowed for diversity of theological views within its bounds of Orthodoxy. This diversity (maybe even over diversity) was Dr. Jordon Coopers biggest reason for not becoming an Anglican. I think you need to therefore be very careful to call Rev. Calvin NOT orthodox.
According to Anglican history, you are dead wrong. The views you expressed are historically more at home with Free Church radicals like Richard Baxter, Daniel Defoe, etc. Incidentally, not being a "Ritualist" as you called it puts you outside the Anglican pale as well. The 1603 canons and the "Ornaments rubric" at the beginning of Morning Prayer prove how wrong you are! There are enough lists of church possessions, furnishings, etc. to show that during year 2 of the reign of Edward VI the local parish churches had the vesrments and instruments at hand to perform a liturgy with all the ceremonial you so clearly despise. If these items weren't meant to be used (on a regular basis, I might add) why didn't the parishioners dispose of them with the roods and images of saints?!?!?!?!?!?!? THE ONLY LOGICAL ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS THAT THEY WERE MEANT TO BE USED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION.
@@Theosis_and_prayer He is neither orthodox nor honest. He has taken a vow to conform his public ministry to the Articles of Religion. He breaks that vow daily and leads others to break it.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
Relatively new Anglican! ACNA (Arkansas) Absolutely beautiful liturgy and people. Christian for over 42 years. The liturgy carries me along and I’m learning the language of it and the charisms also. Thanks be to God ✝️
Hang in there. You will experience a deeper faith in the years to come. For me it’s 13 years. ❤
I am a founding member of Holy Cross Anglican Cathedral which is the arch cathedral of the ACNA. Archbishop Beach was my parish priest before he became a Bishop of our diocese and then Archbishop. We are working hard in GAFCON and with the Global South. Together we represent 85% of Anglicans worldwide
However, there are unresolved dangerously major problems here. Some ACNA parishes accept women "priests" and others absolutely won't. The prayer books used vary from the 1929, the ACNA's 2019 to the theologically heretical 1979 American parody of the BCP. Other congregations worship almost extemporaneously. With this lack of consensus on such major issues, sooner or later, the ACNA will implode and divide into differing factions or denominations. The ACNA is, unfortunately, (like the Episcopal Church) trying to satisfy too many radically different and irreconcilable theological positions on which no compromise is possible thereby sowing the seeds of its own destruction.
@@josephr.gainey2079
The ACNA is newly formed so give it some time to find its balance. Best to pray and not be discouraged. The Spirit will work in our midst in the prayers of the people.
@@josephr.gainey2079
Yes - there seem to be alot of open questions. How do you deal with the major theological differences between the more Reformed churches and the more Anglo-Catholic congregations? How can you have women priests in some dioceses and have this practice condemned in others?
I don't know how these get resolved, but I pray they do. I love the depth of orthodox Anglicanism and the richness of its foundational documents.
I have been to a RC Mass in a church that had walls made of hessian in the Kaisut desert and to a Mass in a Cathedral and the structure of the service was the same. Thats the beauty of the Roman Catholic Church.
In the eyes of men, not in the eyes of God. The real Church of Christ is people who actually follow Jesus and live holy, that is what God consider beautiful and His own.
Nice to see Calvin supporting growing channels.
God bless you both!
God bless you, thank you
I'm looking forward to this. As a person who is still (sort of) in the Church of England, I'd appreciate it if you could ask Rev. Calvin if he thinks the idea of staying put within the established church to try and be an orthodox influence is a realistic idea. I'm coming from the position of a lay person who began the process of ordination discernment, but postponed it due to LLF.
This has already been pre-recorded, but we do touch on that issue.
YES - it is a very sound thing to do (as I am also doing) - to stay put as a true conservative, traditional Anglican Christian inside the CofE - to refuse to leave - and to fight (in a refined Christ-like way) the fakery and wokery of the dreadful forces seemingly now in charge of a sinking ship.
I am very tempted to flee to the GAFCON - as I agree with them - but I think some of us should stay, obstinately, for Christ of course, right HERE.
May God Bless and guide you in whatever you do.
or find a GAFCON Church - there you will find Orthodox Anglicanism.
I’m watching my beloved SBC go that way and it hurts my heart. It’s so obvious to me how liberal it all is
Well, Christ has the final say when you are on your knees in prayer 🙏. And the church is not a building.
I mean... our faith is incarnational so it is a building as well as the souls that inhabit it. We are not Gnostic.
Calvin Robinson is a super hero priest - There needs to be, " 1 " anglican church worldwide.
Priest and Bishops need to get out into the community, - no whining about this society. Go out fullfill the call of the Great Commission. A sinner to say the least is someone we have failed to save - the gospel says that everytime a sinner repents the angels rejoice. We should be making the angels make so much noise they can be heard all over the world.
Richard Hooker was also a Reformer after the Cranmer period and the 39 Articles. He was a brilliant Anglican theologian that corrected or tempered Cranmer's ideas. Catholic practices, signs and symbols are adiaphora -- things indifferent.
🙌
Problem there is nobody agrees on what list of items constitute adiaphora.
One man's adiaphora is another man's proxima fide dogma and another man's discipline and another man's anathema.
Heck yeah!!!
I love my Coptic Orthodox Church, where I was taught that Ortho means correct and doxa means praise :)
GAFCON really need to ditch female clergy. If it isn't a salvation issue it's pretty close
Shout out from Florence Arizona.
Is there any hope of a future king of England who would take a proactive role in returning the church to its traditional place?
I wish
Would such a King have a long enough time in office to get much done? Would he not be assassinated in short order?
Actually the King has no say on it, whatever he personally thinks about. Parliament has that say... But hardly a strong majority will vote these days for a Roman Catholic view sort of Church or even a traditional Anglican way approving Parliament. Forget. The most you'd get would have been disestablishment and disendowment for CofE, followed by tax imposition on the traditional Church that emerged and possible establishment and endowment of any liberal Church that would ask such a prospect to replace CofE as established Church.
@@nunagoras If the King declared his will and good pleasure openly many would follow. Do Patriotic People generally go against the will and good pleasure of their Sovereign Lord no matter what the Constitution and Laws say? Having said this it is my belief that the Church of England is beyond a point of no return. In other words neither the Bishops, the King or the House of Comons or the House of Lords or the Laity can save the Church of England even if they wanted to with all their soul. The Church of England will not be an institution 100 years from now. The Church of England has no future only a past. If any of the Treasures of the Church of England will be saved it will be because Orthodox and or Roman Catholic Bishops will step in and actively save parts of her Liturgy and Spirituality, even independent Anglican Churches will hopefully have a part in this. However, the Church of England as an institution is finished.
Maybe we can turn the old ship round if we stay and fight the perversion outspokenly?
You totally omitted the Continuing Anglican movement which since 1977 has witnessed and warned against what they prophetic predicted (correctly) the disaster that is official Anglicanism. The response they met from Episcopalians was "Just because we violated Scripture and ordained women doesn't mean we'll ... [fill in the blank]." WRONG! It is a slippery slope.
This group may be small and have problems (such as its division into various denominations, usually based on ego and personality rather than actual meaningful theological differences), but we must give them their due. They warned us as to what was coming and very few of us listened. We're paying for that major mistake today!
Perhaps there will be another realignment within North American Anglicanism at some point with the older continuing churches and those traditional congregations in ACNA who steadfastly oppose WO
Brilliant!
Calvin, surely the many forms of free churches are known in GB.
I like Calvin, but what he is calling "sola scriptura" is actually a modern popular misunderstanding of sola scriptura that the reformers never claimed. Sola scriptura means that the scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice. That doesn't mean we don't value the fathers or the role of the church in interpreting the scriptures, or that we don't value the role of tradition. It simply means that in the scriptures we have the standard by which all these other authorities are governed. Scripture is the norm which norms all other norms. It is a sure deposit of the ancient faith and it is the only authority we call the word of God.
The way I view it, it is the result of RC corruption of the Tradition. When the tradition was corrupted, there needed to be a way to measure it to see if it is valid. If the Tradition matches what Scripture says, there is no conflict between the two. It is only when there is a division between the two, that is where it comes in.
1) The pre-confessional reformers did not agree on what sola scriptura meant or entailed. You only see an agreement after the confessions of faith and that agreement barely lasts 100 years before people again challenge what sola scriptura actually entails.
2) The overhemeling majority of modern day Protestants define sola scriptura the way Rev. Cal does.
3) The traditional confessional conservative Lutherans, Anglicans and Presbyterians are now 500 years later the very small minority within contemporary Protestantism.
I say none of this to attack you but rather to show that Rev. Cal is simply reflecting the current view. Before the 2nd Great Awakening you would have had a point. But even during that short period, they still did not agree on sola scriptura but had varying views on tradition and Church authority.
For centuries now Protestants haven't agreed on what sola scriptura entails. And Protestants also reject all the so called Radical Reformers who were also there almost at the start too who in fact never accepted the Gavin Ortlund view of sola scriptura. And many of those theologians like Sebastian Franck and Huldrick Zwingli were heavily educated on the Church Fathers.
@@mamaliamalak7825The problem for many former Protestants like myself is that this theory fails to convince us because we know so many men of high intelligence, good will and strong acuity over Greek and Hebrew who still can't agree on core doctrines.
Let's be clear- that does not therefore mean Catholicism or her claims are true or win by default. That has to be demonstrated and proven. Maybe Catholicism is still false.
But what it does do for many converts like myself, is that it convinces us the Protestant theory cant work. We know too many educated Protestants of good will who disagree on very fundamental issues which if the theory of sola scriptura is true in our conscience tells us this should not be the case. After all the Greek and exegesis and word study and hermeneutics we should eventually be able to form an agreement at least of some kind in salvic issues.
@@Theosis_and_prayer
1. Sola Scriptura isn’t a doctrine per se, like the Trinity or Incarnation. It shouldn’t surprise you that there are variances in how people understand or employ the basic principle. It’s more of a re-valuing of Scripture prompted by a crisis of the 16th century. Specifically, the convergence of the medieval corruption of the Gospel (i.e., indulgences, the treasury of merit, purgatory, exaggerated papal claims, withholding the cup from the laity, forced religious vows, etc.) and the availability of Greek and Hebrew texts that allowed the reformers access to the sources of Christian doctrine (Ad Fontes!). In that context, the discontinuity between Roman practice and scriptural teaching became unavoidably obvious. So, the presenting question is where can a Christian turn to find authentic Gospel teaching, the teaching of the Apostles? To the Roman Magisterium? Or to the sure deposit of Apostolic faith as found in the ancient texts? Having witnessed the medieval system, they chose to return to the Holy Scriptures. So, “Sola Scriptura” became a rallying cry or slogan to promote a return to Holy Scripture as a measure of Christian doctrine. It was never intended to be a doctrine per se to which everyone needed to have the same articulation.
2. I hope it doesn’t really surprise you that popular street level “definitions” of Sola Scriptura are all over the map. You could say that about just about every Christian doctrine these days. This is not unlike how a recent Pew Research poll found that over 60% of American Catholics view the Mass as a mere symbol. So, on that evidence, am I to conclude that the Catholic Church no longer holds to the Real Presence? No, I don’t think so.
Calvin Robinson is a young recent seminary graduate and a newly ordained deacon. He would do well to delve more deeply into Protestant history and thought. He’s got a few blind spots.
3. In North America, Lutherans, Anglicans, and the Reformed certainly lost ground during the revivalist movements. But Christ’s Church, all of it, continues. Sola Scriptura may never hold sway in the same way that it did among the 16th century reformers, but you can see its effects today among all the Churches, even Rome. When’s the last time you bought an indulgence? Does your parish have a weekly or even more frequent Mass? Do they offer you the cup? Does your congregation sing? Do you own a Bible? Do you believe that by God’s grace Jesus in his death and resurrection has atoned for your sins? My guess is that your answers would not differ substantially from the average Protestant of any stripe. So, for that you can thank the reformers and Sola Scriptura.
@mj6493 You're not understanding.
Nobody is saying your doctrinal views are wrong - that's a separate question. Do you understand the difference?
What we are saying is that you are wrong and deceptive in accusing Rev. Calvin of misrepresenting sola scriptura.
Your anger should not be directed towards Rev. Calvin but to your fellow Prots you say are in error. It's not Rev. Calvin's fault if that's the doctrine of sola scriptura the vast majority of contemporary Prots hold to why blame him? You should be rebuking them. If they all believed in the unique and novel version of sola scriptura you hold onto, surely you understand Rev. Cal would be using that definition right? It's not reasonable for him to use the definition of the 1%.
And your reference to RC are confused. As the online Protestant polemist TOP says, you can't compare the 2 regarding adherence to teaching bc Catholicism has an official dogmatic reference so you can objectively see what the official teaching is wheras Protestantism by its nature is diverse. That's not me saying that - but your own fellow conservative reformed Prots. Unless you want to ssy your the Pope of Protestantism and can define its dogams. But the fact you mentioned that means again you've missed the issue. It's not a defence of Catholicism but of Rev. Calvin (your fellow Protestant). You need to be more fair towards him.
Another reason why the Protestant lies and tricks don't work on me is because I was a highly trained Protestant before I became a Christian.
I don't understand how unity can exist in a situation in which nobody has the final say. Christ has a kingdom, He is the king, He did not leave things without leadership in charge, in fact He spoke of the keys. I cannot understand how the keys can get tossed, the Blessed Sacrament can get tossed, all when He gave out the keys and said His body was real food.
The Trinity is a hierarchy, marriage is designed as a hierarchy, all of nature and every organization has a hierarchy. How is it possible that God would leave man as the head in marriage and the King would not leave someone in charge?
As for the reform, I would say it was more of a pick and choose of things Catholic, things were tossed according to rather dim lights in my opinion. Purgatory, which is a mercy, gets tossed, instead one is called to believe that uncle Fred was "saved" and will zoom into heaven, because, after all his flaws and perhaps a little excess drink, he was a good man, not perfect but good. Well, guess what, he is not perfect enough, not by a long shot. Hence the mercy of purgatory, as through a fire, as the scripture puts it.
It is not a small thing that very important things are lost by lack of a leader with authority. Nowhere does it say the "leader" the guy with the keys is fabulous guy, Peter denied Christ 3 times, and as much as people crap on him for doing that, plenty of Christians deny Christ for some illicit sex, for money, for a career, and on and on. The key is repentance.
God bless and peace to all.
Purgatory was developed during the Middle Ages, as I'm sure you know. The Church of the first millennium (prior to the great schism of AD 1054) had no such concept. Of course, the corrupt practice of indulgences developed swiftly after.
Purgatory can be found in the bible itself, which is a Catholic compendium of inspired scripture, without which no bibles would exist anywhere today. That is because the church pre-existed the bible by several hundred years, and it was that church from which all scripture comes, none other. The concept of praying for the can be found in Judaism, from which the church originally came. This can be found in the book of Maccabees. Additional mention is also found in the New Testament where one is saved bypassing through a fire. That is in reference to the needed cleansing prior to seeing God in the face, Purgatory is a mercy of God since few die perfect in every way so as to be able to look upon the perfect God. Jesus redeems by baptism, any sins we do after that need atonement or purification before seeing God. That may be done here on earth, but for most it will continue after death, hence the reference to passing through the fire in Corinthians. Teachings on purgatory existed all along.
@@clivejames5058
@@johnjon1823 Why focus on Maccabees when you have the apostle Paul teaching us about Christ's promise to those who believe in HIM, which supersedes Maccabees - Read for instance Col 2: 13-14 - "When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having cancelled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross"
If we are born of the spirit and the spirit indwells us how can the "saints" be closer to God than us ?
The saints are not burdened with the flesh anymore.
I'm late to ask. I'm not trying to be offensive in any way. Does one need to be gay in order to join the Episcopal Church?
Para ser católico é preciso estar em comunhão com a Sé Apostólica de Roma.
Q: Jonah do you think you would have been tempted to become RC under the pontificate of Benedict VI?
It would have been tempting. However, I'm just not convinced of the Papal claims, so I'm not sure it would have been enough.
😮🎉
What is true tradition and true reason? Where do we go to find these? We go to Scripture. We ought to be ever reforming the church by the word of God into the shape of the apostolic faith once and for unto the saints.
Malcolm X, Muhammad Ali, Cat Stevens ...
Scripture is not the supreme authority it is the sole authority. Tradition and reason are corrupted.
He’s wrong about the English Church keeping its Catholicity. Cranmer , Jewel , Hooper , Edward VI. All Protestants who were all anti Catholic
They were rightfully anti-Roman Catholic. At the time of the English Reformation things in Rome were not real pretty.
Hope you ask the simple question,” Calvin,do you believe the Roman Catholic Church preach a false Gospel?” The chances you ask this simple question is remote. He may direct you to Galatians chapter 1?
Why invoke the saints? Where do we find this in Scripture?
..as Calvin said,”spreading a false Gospel. “
Does Calvin believe the Roman Catholic Church is “ spreading a false Gospel?”
Would be interesting what his reply would be.
Gafcon Michael Nazir Ali has blazed the trail!
I guess that's the biggest challenge!
The future of orthodox anglicanism is to convert to confessional lutheranism.
Orthodox Anglicanism ??? Are you doing a U-turn on the Council of Hatfield?
Brother Calvin is flogging a dead horse!
“The Reformation was not anti Catholic” .Agreed,it was to show the Roman Catholic Church was preaching a false Gospel. The Reformers were “Catholic” but rejected the RCC false Gospel.
Nonsense!
If they preach a false gospel, you have to be consistent and say they can't be normatively saved unless they leave and embrace the true gospel.
From an Orthodox Christian perspective, there is not and never has been a unity in Faith among Anglicans. The puzzling issue of so-called churchmanship is simply incomprehensible to Orthodox Christians.
Go fix your patriarch of Moscow then talk of unity lol
There's literally no reason to be an Anglican, it was made purely as a political body to further personal aims.
There is no hope in the pope. Romanism is mystery Babylon, the mother of harlots, drunk with the blood of the martyrs and saints of Jesus. Christ gave one sacrifice for sins, forever, never to be repeated and is our one great high priest and shepherd and bishop of our souls.
You should remember that the Anglican church was founded by a serial murderer and a serial adulterer. Henry VIII declared himself to be head of the church in England instead of the Pope and set about slaughtering all who opposed him. Elizabeth I was even worse. Priests had to go in hiding, and faithful Catholics who harboured them were killed with horrendous punishments. For instance Margaret Clitheroe was stripped naked in public, laid on the road, a door put on top of her, then heavy stones laid upon her so she was slowly squashed to death. Paradoxically, before the Reformation, Henry was given the title 'Defender of the Faith' which to this day coins of the realm are inscribed with Fid Def the Latin equivalent. It took centuries for Catholics to be allowed to practice their faith, provided any churches built were not in public view. All the ancient churches built by the Normans were handed over to the Anglicans and never returned (probably saving Catholics a huge amount of money in repairs!)
What did Mary do to earn the title "Bloody Mary?" Not to excuse, but doesn't her brutality create the context for the anti-Catholic reaction that occurred?
Yah but don’t get stuck there. The Anglican Church ⛪️ I’ve been going to for 13 years has been a great place for me to grow in my faith . Be encouraged to try an ACNA church. You won’t be disappointed.
@@crossvilleengineering1238 Elizabeth I did try mightily to bring peace between the two churches. She was in an almost impossible situation where there were many Catholics in the nobility and other positions of power and influence and the question of loyalty was paramount. She wanted coexistence but, sadly, never got it.
Actually Elizabeth 1 was probably one of our first sort of free thinker it was Bloody Mary that was by far the worse and killed many!!
Catholics openly tried to assassinate Elizabeth 1st. She herself was prepared to be moderate and famously said 'I have no desire to make windows into men's souls' - but what do you do with bands of murderous Catholics setting up plot after plot?
Calvin ,”there salvation is at stake” . As long as they have an Alter Christus to give them their last rights before they go to purgatory,they will be ok.
There is no purgatory
Do you mean "rites"? "Rights" are what a citizen of a country is entitled to by law. Religious ceremonies or the unique customs of a denomination or a group (such as Anglo-Catholics) are called "rites." If the latter is what you mean, I would tend to agree with you.
@@josephr.gainey2079 I knew I had made a mistake as soon as I sent it. Thanks for spotting it.
@@josephr.gainey2079 if you look at all the posts ,you will see I corrected myself immediately (3days ago)
The Church of England - later to become 'Anglicanism' - was 'under-girded' (according to the 16th-Century theologian, Richard Hooker) through its appeal to a form of 'trinity': Scripture, Tradition and Reason. Unfortunately, over the past century, there has arisen a large, dominant, 'cult' within the Church of England which wishes to abolish the 'Reason' section of that trinity; and rely solely on Scripture and Tradition. At its most extreme, the adherents of this cult practice 'sola scriptura', and appear to worship our scriptures: rather than the God the authors of those scriptures were attempting to say something about. This is NOT 'orthodox' Anglicanism: and Calvin Robinson does not represent 'orthodox' Anglicanism. He represents that large, and dominant, cult. Were there to be a full Council of the Church - such as that attempted by Vatican II, only more embracing - then this way of envisaging our scriptures (as the sole means of revelation) may well be exposed for what it is: a rival 'belief-system'.
Rites.
Calvin Robinson,” There is so much in the RCC that is true 😂”
How about the Council of Trent declaring that imputed righteousness is anathema? And the RCC still do. I could go on and on with examples the RCC have a false Gospel. But hey,as Calvin says ,there so much in the RCC that is true.😂
@marktodd1911 Mark,I could name Muslim teachings that would fall into your idea of “ traditions!”
I could spend hours going through the false teachings of the RCC,but hey,it would probably fall of deaf ears.
The book by James R White “ The Roman Catholic Controversy” is in my opinion the best book to explain the problem- even though as you say,we share common ground on some points,but there are crucial differences in our doctrines that cannot be ignored.
@marktodd1911 by the way,”producing one example of something you disagree with within Roman Catholicism. “ The heart of the matter is just vital,yet you dismiss it with “ one example” quote!! Come on.
Rubbish!
@marktodd1911 the RCC must be embarrassed by the Marxist Pope in charge now,once he gets his henchmen in position ,what next? Warning people is the loving thing to do.
As someone who was Protestant before I became Christian, I actually agree with you - I don't think a Protestant can be consistent and claim that Catholics are brothers in Christ.
Religiin is declining, accept it. Grow up
A sinking ship. Swim, swim to Islam.
Oh my Lord - NEVER… That can never be.
He would never reject our Lord Jesus Christ
No need to jump from the frying pan into the fire.
@@gracehatch7779 no need to be a rat from a sinking ship… repair the ship and head for home
…”move towards Roman Catholicism or to the” East”….Calvin…”I think it’s a good thing.”😂
Calvin may be a “good speaker”,but when you scratch the surface,he is all over the place in his theological platform.
@@crossvilleengineering1238 Protestants all agree,salivation is by Grace alone,through Faith alone,in Christ alone,according to Scripture alone,for God’s Glory alone.Other issues are debates amongst Christians. Calvinists believe Regeneration precedes Faith. John 6:65,(Christ speaking) “No one can come to me unless the Father enables them.”
@@crossvilleengineering1238Catholics have created heresies even (not saying dispensationaliam is heresy, just error). The Apostle Paul complained about false teachers coming out of the churches he and the other apostles planted. Do they make Paul and the others wrong?
@@crossvilleengineering1238 heresy is when a belief can affect your salvation (e.g., a denial of the Trinity). Error is a non-essential idea that doesn't rise to the category of heresy (again, the example of dispensational belief vs other views.)
@@crossvilleengineering1238 I don't know. I'd probably use error instead of heresy, except if the Penetecostalist was Oneness.
@@crossvilleengineering1238 Heresy would also include pelagianism, not just issues surrounding the Trinity. Doctrines that touch on salvation are included in the core issues that can affect a person's salvation.
As for Baptists, my experience is limited to Reformed Baptist, which are orthodox in their beliefs.
For a good discussion , I would recommend Gavin Ortlund's Theological Triage video. I think it's helpful for sorting out the crucial from the non-crucial doctrinal issues.
Calvin is NOT an orthodox Anglican. He flat out rejects Anglican doctrine as articulated in our Formularies. Sadly, he is a Ritualist who promotes idolatry. Those who follow him have forsaken the gospel just as the leftists have. Being a conservative is not enough.
Rev. Calvin is the best Anglican you have. He's fighting to keep them going into moral heresy.
Anglicanism for centuries has allowed for diversity of theological views within its bounds of Orthodoxy. This diversity (maybe even over diversity) was Dr. Jordon Coopers biggest reason for not becoming an Anglican.
I think you need to therefore be very careful to call Rev. Calvin NOT orthodox.
According to Anglican history, you are dead wrong. The views you expressed are historically more at home with Free Church radicals like Richard Baxter, Daniel Defoe, etc.
Incidentally, not being a "Ritualist" as you called it puts you outside the Anglican pale as well. The 1603 canons and the "Ornaments rubric" at the beginning of Morning Prayer prove how wrong you are! There are enough lists of church possessions, furnishings, etc. to show that during year 2 of the reign of Edward VI the local parish churches had the vesrments and instruments at hand to perform a liturgy with all the ceremonial you so clearly despise. If these items weren't meant to be used (on a regular basis, I might add) why didn't the parishioners dispose of them with the roods and images of saints?!?!?!?!?!?!? THE ONLY LOGICAL ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS THAT THEY WERE MEANT TO BE USED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION.
Wow! Let me know what kind of Christian you are, and I’ll be sure to avoid it with that kind of snarkiness. Very un-Christlike.
@@Theosis_and_prayer He is neither orthodox nor honest. He has taken a vow to conform his public ministry to the Articles of Religion. He breaks that vow daily and leads others to break it.