On Apostasy in Anglicanism - An Interview with Fr. Calvin Robinson
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ก.ย. 2023
- I interview the legendary Fr. Calvin Robinson, a deacon of the Free Church of England & political commentator, on the heresy and apostasy that has infected multiple regions within the Anglican communion, most notably the Church of England itself. We will discuss how this came to be and what Anglicans of all stripes - from laity to clergy - can do to fight back. This interview will be relevant to believers of all traditions who want to stop the advance of the liberal horde, but most especially to fellow Anglicans.
Fr. Robinson's website: www.calvinrobinson.com
~~~
My official website & blog: www.theotherpaul64.com
Follow me on Gab: gab.com/Paulos
Become a financial supporter: theotherpaul.locals.com
Join the official Discord server (The Theocrat Lounge): / discord
Listen to streams in Podcast Format: anchor.fm/the-other-paul
Follow my social media & consider supporting my ministry in other ways. All links are here: linktr.ee/The_Other_Paul
Intro music:
To God Be The Glory, composed by William Howard Doane (1832-1916) with descant arranged by Richard M S Irwin (b. 1955). Melody Public Domain, Descant © 2020 Richard M S Irwin
Performance ℗ 2020 Richard M S Irwin. All rights reserved. ISRC: UKTU21900097
play.hymnswithoutwords.com/to... - บันเทิง
As a Confessional Presbyterian the BCP 1662 International has been a joy amd honor to pray daily.
The bcp might as well have come from heaven because it is 🔥, saying this as a Roman Catholic who uses the 1928 American for the daily office and the family prayers with my children.
He is spot on with contraception being the key to all of the craziness of our world today.
Wrongly used contraception is the outworking of transhumanism. Transhumanism/Gnosticism is the sin, not contraception.
@@RussianBot4Christ I have to disagree. Contraception is always disordered and inherently wrong.
@@cullanfritts4499that's a very strong statement and claim. And it is not what I heard Calvin say. I disagree that contraception is always wrong. But conception often coincides with with sinful actions. I am not sure it is a defensible position to say that conception is "inherently disordered".
@@BrianLassek It is what all Christians universally believed until the 1930s when the Church of England made an exception for extreme cases. Before that, it was entirely unacceptable and even illegal in many western nations. I am happy to make a Biblical case for this if you like.
@@cullanfritts4499 Make the biblical case pls. I often have this discussion with some friends of mine and I would like to hear a strong defense of every side
I’m Presbyterian and former Catholic, Calvin has gotten me interested in Anglo-Catholicism. I do miss a high church liturgy and I want a church that has a high view of the sacraments.
Maybe those papists arent wrong about everything, eh
Contraception is one of the main pillars of Protestantism and it's Easy Gospel! (We don't want to follow those aweful Catholics and their Pope now do we). The Church of Englands canonisation of contraception in 1930 was just another example of the futility of Sola Scriptura. What was doctrine for centuries all thrown away because "we won't be told what to do by the Pope and Bishops. I will decide my doctrine from my Bible reading!"
there's no high church movement in presbyerianism just sayin'
Love listening to Calvin Robinson...excellent.
Nice interview.
The KJV is the perfect, inspired, word of God.
_Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God_ .
This is what the KJV translators said of other translations into English, and I cannot imagine this being different for subsequent standard translations.
No it’s not.
Written Scripture is infallible, but NOT translations and NOT private interpretations. "the church is pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15).
Luther didn't leave Rome. Exsurge Domine, 1520. He and his fellow Reformers were excommunicated.
Ex-communicated for their heresies of Bible Alone and Faith Alone which find no support in the early church including scripture.
@@DD-bx8rbThey taught the Scriptures were the only infallible authority not the only authority.
@@thejoshuaproject3809 And that practice you describe does not work. When you replace the Church as Final Authority, your final authority becomes your rendering of Scripture. This practice, we know, results in thousands of versions of "truth" and continual division. Where do we find Sola Sccriptura in the NT? Chapter and verse, please.
"If you change the words of the creed, you're a heretic."
*Sweats uncomfortably in LCMS*
(We have an annoying heritage of saying "Christian" in the creed rather than catholic).
This has to do with its translation from the German.
If you read Pusey's _Eirenicon,_ please post a review video. I'd like to hear your reaction.
Very interesting, and a really good interview- thank you! I find myself either totally opposed to or totally with Calvin, and not much between, but in this one, he talked about more about God than politics, and that was good to hear. :)
About a couple of things mentioned: I don't agree about beauty, although I may have misunderstood. I think that the comment about Satan masquerading as an angel of light is right- and it's similar to many of the issues in the church and in society in general, in which many things impersonate what is good and true and lovely, and are taken to be genuine. Even things like the faux-masculinity of A Tate or the misguided compassion of someone wanting to affirm a lie are following that kind of pattern. Many people are well-meaning but blinded.
Look at the reverse of it: the Lord had nothing in his appearance that might be attractive. There are parts of serving him that may have no apparent beauty to them- they may seem drudgery, dirty, hard, painful work. It's only God that turns them into something beautiful.
But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't aspire to promote what is genuinely beautiful, and that our places of worship and music and art shouldn't be crammed full of beauty- just as long as the focus is on the Lord :)
The q about re-marriage. My view is that, yes, divorce is too easy, because marriage is too cheap. If you commit adultery, as a general rule, you shouldn't re-marry, but then, how far do we go with that? Christ showed us that lust outside of marriage = adultery. Where does that leave 99% of humanity?! Where does it leave someone who becomes a Christian or just repented and returned to Christ, after re-marrying?
Personally, I think that if someone has re-married, then it is probably worse, in general, not better, to leave the new partner. If my wife committed adultery and left me and re-married, why should I want their kids to suffer messed-up-ness by her then leaving him- and according to some schools of thought, returning to me? Even if I don't like the guy and think he's a real git, at least their kids can grow up with both parents around. Why should they miss out and be set an example of unfaithfulness?- maybe it's a chance to set the train back on the tracks. Another set of extended family torn apart? I think that can easily become pure selfishness through legalism. It's not all about us. God is better than that.
And, there are so many other issues with that, if you took adultery out of the equation. That would see honest, decent non-Christian spouses, who have gone into what is the 2nd marriage for the other person, but perhaps the 1st for themselves- gone into it whole-heartedly, trustingly, unaware of the idea of people leaving 2nd marriages, being rewarded by unfaithfulness, being left in the lurch- and they shouldn't have to go through that. The idea taken to the extreme some recommend is also It would mean people returning to abusive relationships, returning to live with feckless addicts, living with people who only scorn their love and constantly sleep around- It would mean leaving kids all over the place in a pickle- it just seems to be adding sin on top of sin- yeah, let's just make a really bad situation a whole lot worse.
I think there must be a place to find common-sense, and a place for mercy- we also have to keep in mind God's thought that it is not good for man to be alone, and Paul's saying that it is better to marry than to burn with lust. Here are 2 more examples- both of those who married young: I had a friend, who, at 19, married a middle-aged alcoholic, believing she could fix him. She divorced him a year or two later, a broken person, when things culminated in his going to beat her. If she is now in a stable marriage, I think that would be a good thing. Another friend ended up- via family connections and naivety- married to a guy who turned out to be uninterested in her, but very keen on men, and she eventually divorced him. She subsequently entered a stable monogamous marriage, probably 50+ years, last time I heard.
So, how can we insist on the sanctity of marriage, and yet take into account that people can change dramatically, that people make foolish judgements when they are young, or not so young, etc, etc?
As for equating women in leadership with blessing same-sex relationships, I don't think that's a fair comparison. There is a decent conversation to be had about women leading, as there is plenty of scriptural basis- e.g. Priscilla and Aquila jointly teaching Apollos, and the various female leaders, disciples, witnesses, prophets and plain examples in the Bible, plus the possible designation of women as recipients of Paul's letters, perhaps expected to teach congregations God's word- that's not definite, but is one reading of it. You have to balance that with Paul's comments about not permitting women to teach, and to keep quiet in meetings, etc- but at least there's a real debate to be had about whether those were meant for a particular context or not. The same is not true about same-sex relationships. There are no positive examples of these in scripture, and they are always depicted negatively, and are therefore not something that, if loving, we should affirm.
Anyway, thanks for that! Blessings to you :) Tom
The question is not around women in leadership *in any sense*, but against specifically the ordination of women to the pastorate. There is no scriptural basis for that decision. There is a role for women in the leadership of the church in various ways, but the pastorate is not one of them. The pastorate is a specific office with a specific role in the church, not some general concept that churches can apply how they feel.
I love Calvin Rob but if he wants be logically consistent as an anglo Catholic he by definition has to accept that baptized reformed Anglicans are brothers in Christ.
Agreed. I am a Reformed-flavored Anglican. Article 17 sounds pretty Reformed to me. I go to a high-church parish where the priest is very much of that view and the Christian faith is vibrant and expanding.
@@davidg.785 Amen. The reformation was an attempt to return to the Church Catholic.
46:10 Fr. Calvin is subtweeting Red Rock haaard with this.
I have been interested to learn more about Old Catholics, their writings and theology, and see if there are any near me, but whenever I look I seem to come up with nothing. Does anyone think they can point me in a helpful direction?
Old Catholics don't have their "specific" writings and theology. Old Catholics is the sect that rejects the authority and validity of Vatican I. So, pretty much all pre-1869 Catholic theology are "Old Catholic" theology.
Old Catholics are full woke, and totally obsolete, that’s why you can’t find anything
Few fathers come to mind. While Reformed draw upon them as well, Catholics do too: Ireanus, Ignatius of Antioch, Ambrose, Augustine. For medieval obviously you can do Aquinas: Summa Theologica, a condensed version called, " a shorter summa" by Catholic theologian Peter Kreeft, has footnotes to make it more understandable to us mortals. In the modern period I would suggest Cardinal John Henry Newman.
The "Old Catholic Church" does not have a pope. They have canonised womens "ordination" and homosexuality. Whilst possessing more Apostolic Tradition than Anglicanism, and having valid Holy Orders, they lack the unifying and authoritative office of Peter, and there is nothing to stop them drifting further into heresy in the future.
I love Calvin and think he’s a great voice for the Church, but he’s fundamentally wrong about the English Reformation, the English Reformers, and the early days of Anglicanism in general.
Agreed. They were pretty clear that they were Protestant and in favor of the Reformation.
Dounds like you ate describing confessional Luthererans. Scripture plys sacrament
The Latin church is schismatic, the protestant are schismatic etc. It will only lead to further schisms. I think Orthodoxy (Eastern) is the most sound of all. coming from a non nominational follower of christ. I think the shift at the time of the reformation can also be seen in our economic system. We are addicted and enslaved to intrest, which Calvinism basically allowed.
lol who are you to say that? youre “non denominational” you dont even have a magisterium to declare what is and isnt schismatic
You heard of Moscow and Constantinople? I mean, really, the gas lighting of the East is unbelievable.
@@planatano_ You need not have a magisterium, You need the Spirit. I dont declare, I know history. Filioque is a latter addition to creed. I moslty think that all Christians should be under one church and therefor i am not nominational because THAT would say I declare to know what is right and wrong. Thats why I say I think its the MOST sound of all. Instead of claiming it is the single and only true church.
@@firebirdcas just because its a later addition to the creed does not mean rome is schismatic but that isnt even my point, mu point is when you dont believe in a concept of the one true church the concept of schism ceases to exist
Orthodoxy? Tell that to the 22 different eastern churches who have returned to the Rock of Peter over the centuries.
By the way, Deacon Robinson is a deacon, not a priest.
Robinson in fact possesses none of the 3 degrees of Holy Orders(deacon, priest, bishop). Rome gave England her holy orders and Rome revoked them due to lack of both form and intention. Robinson will soon become a Catholic I believe.
Any anglican church thats solid in stlouis Missouri area?
Institute of Christ the King St Francis de Sales Oratory ;)
@@SATMathReview1234 haha, been there. No longer catholic.
@@jordand5732 Am sorry to hear that, certainly hope you come back in good conscience soon. God Bless
@@SATMathReview1234 god bless you too! Lets keep each other in prayer today.
@@jordand5732 I recommend to you, the site Catholic Answers.
You can be neo-Marxism and liberalism are opposites, one was created to appose the other, you can not be liberalist and neo-Marxism at the same time. If it wasn't for liberalist - then you would not be able to have this podcast. Liberalism is base on the believe that everybody has a right to an opinion and their own actions which is free-will at its core. Are you saying that people should not have free will, which isn't that reject one of the principles the Christian god set down.
ooof, i love calvin but his extreme alnglo catholciism (incosnistent with his formularies) is an issue
We got our Apostolic Succession from Gregory the Great, and we have the AV Bible, the Prayer Book 1662/1928, and the 39 Articles, so we don't have to worry what Welby or Francis are saying or doing.
The apostacy started with a divorce (or an annulment).
As a Roman Catholic, I have to say that hearing Anglican whining about the importance of authority in the face of liberalism is amusingl. As Protestants you can simply choose whatever authority you like, so why complain when your own follow your example?
Time to take out this canard for the umpteenth time.
First, physically and psychologically speaking, we can all choose whatever authority we want. You make the active choice to choose the Papist authority system over others, because you can make that choice.
With respect to our authority systems, no, "Protestants" don't believe we can just pick and choose our own authority. First, "Protestantism" doesn't exist; it's an umbrella for multiple traditions. Second, with respect to Anglicanism, we are bound to Holy Scripture and its faithful exposition. So, if a council of our bishops were to rule on a manner in accordance with Holy Scripture, we are bound to submit. This isn't hard; you don't have to invent BS and make a fool of yourself.
Lol. The cognitive dissonance it takes to write this when the Pope is opening the door to same sex marriage blessings!😂😂😂
@@justinpickup603 Has he? Well, I suppose mockery is the best we can expect from such ill informed prejudice.
@@TheOtherPaul Protestantisms authority is the Bible, in the absence of the authority of the Catholic Church. This practice, by it's very nature, results in a myriad of sects all claiming the "right interpretation". The practice is a broken one.
@@TheOtherPaul You "So, if a council of our bishops were to rule on a manner in accordance with Holy Scripture, we are bound to submit". This is Faux-Authority. You are simply saying you submit to the bishops authority, but if you believe his teaching is against scripture you can disobey. So it is your own rendering of Scripture that is your authority...The Catholic Church however, has real authority. A bishop must be in communion with the Pope and the official teaching of the Church as handed on down through the centuries. "the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1Tim 3:15) and NOT the private interpretations of groups/individuals running around with the Bible (7 books removed) outside the authority of the church.