Cleave to Christ

1/18 Christian Wagner and Kevin Fernandez spent 80 minutes on Scholastic Answers Youtube trying to defend communion in one kind. It didn't work. Most importantly, they conceded that the celebrant must receive both species. That concession proves our case. "Dominical Both-Kinds" is the historic, apostolic, orthodox, catholic, biblical answer. The Latin medieval withholding is the anomaly and sinful. Whats at stake is whether the Church is bound by what Christ instituted or if the Church can change dominical institutions (it can't!) Thread.

@ByJimbob I have both Gospel and a Church

@CleaveToChrist You don’t have the Gospel without a Church.

👇🏼

@ChrisxCrash92 Notice you don’t make an argument re where @WesleyLHuff or @needGod_net are wrong Repent and believe the Gospel

Wes Huff will be accountable for all the souls he takes with him to Hell for this kind of crap.

@BereanHouse @anus_anon @ByJimbob @BaptistClips Have you seen @ProtPhilosopher AIT? It’s a very clear articulation of the traditional understanding of Scripture being the norming norm

@anus_anon @ByJimbob @BaptistClips Acts 17:11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. Why did Luke call the Bereans noble for doing that?

Baptism Is Not Part of The Gospel

@ByJimbob @BaptistClips Not getting baptized is sinful

@BaptistClips Chapter 7 of the Didache. Why should we listen to you instead of the earliest teachings of Christianity?

@needGod_net They should all repent and believe the Gospel

Are you sure you'll go to heaven? See the answers from the Muslims, Catholics, and Orthodox. Very similar answers.

I don’t think he’s a grifter. He’s just low income and apparently not able to keep a steady job. I don’t think it’s sinful to beg (the poor will always be with us) Teaching false gospels is another matter But these claims about low income YouTubers like @JayDyer and @ByJimbob and @C2Antiquity etc being grifters should stop IMO

Here is a NUKE 🔥 A 16 minute video of Jay Dyer begging for money.. and bitcoins from his Christian audience and then crying when he doesn't get enough superchats! He is the biggest all time grifter and hypocrite

@ChaseLondonRay @ByJimbob So I should stop French kissing skulls? I don’t know if I can resist. Ha!

@ByJimbob @CleaveToChrist The Law (which trumps every "church father) says bones should be buried promptly. It is uncleanness to leave them unburied. The Torah is clear about the necessity of burial. Paganism however abounded with relic veneration.

@ByJimbob I’m an adopted child of God. Repent and believe the Gospel.

@CleaveToChrist You are an orphan with no church.

@LizzieMarbach Why do most Christian’s hate slavery so much? Almost every disciple described themselves as a slave of Christ If your slave master is perfect … slavery is good

Very true!

@needGod_net @Trent_Horn So simple that the sinful human mind doesn’t want to intellectually assent to it. But assent isn’t faith Faith = trust and complete confidence

Thanks for the reply Trent. But how do I know I’m truly saved? I don’t look to my works to find out if I believe, I can simply know what my confidence is in, Jesus or myself to save me. As Paul says “I know whom I have believed” (2 Tim 1:12). The big difference is, under the Catholic view, you think you remain in a state of grace but obedience to God’s rules (that is, not doing mortal sins). That’s what makes it performance-based, rather than purely grace based. I remain in a state of grace by faith in Jesus, and not my obedience at all, because Jesus was perfectly obedient on my behalf. But I still seek to be obedient out of love and gratitude to God, but it doesn’t keep me in a state of grace. By the way, we should definitely do this chat we were planning on doing earlier this year.

"I haven't mortally sinned" — Really? Responding to Trent Horn.

@DrJordanBCooper melanchthon.com/en/european-me…

No publishing project would be more beneficial to the church universal than a publication of Melanchthon's works which is comparable in scope to the Luther's Works series.

@farmingandJesus This guy ne is so obvious I’m shocked every time there is a discussion or “debate” I’m tired of RC and EO actually doing something and then saying “but I just said I’m not doing that therefore I’m not” Reminds me of a criminal simply saying “wasn’t me” as a defense.

He’s right.

@LizzieMarbach There are multiple places in the New Testament, where Paul is speaking to a specific local custom That said, I would 100% agree that in the year 2026 it’s super feminine for a guy to “wear long hair” All of the persnickety male grooming reads effeminate to me

If it is disgraceful for men to have long hair, then why do people always depict Jesus as having long hair? “Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him,” 1 Corinthians 11:14

@LizzieMarbach @calvinrobinson He shows zero fruits of the spirit … and jumps around denominations like a rabbit

@calvinrobinson Go back to your own country if you hate our religion so much. America is a Protestant nation.

Kentucky is a majority Christian state. The vast majority of those Christians are Evangelical Protestants. Let the reader understand.

@ProtPhilosopher @andrewawge @skyredpillguy @Acolyte83349490 AIT is a great working thesis and seems to get stronger on every critique!

Thanks for your reply. You say I've shifted from normativity to epistemology and committed a category error, but that's not quite right. In fact, I'd argue the shoe is on the other foot. My reply to Perry involves a distinction within normative theory. It's one his argument relies on but doesn't make. It's between source normativity and access normativity. Both are normative categories. The first asks what grounds an obligation. The second asks what conditions must obtain for an obligation to bear on the agent. Perry's move conflates these. And if you look at my article I spend the bulk of my time undermining this move. Further, the tables turn because your move and Perry's move requires treating the conditions of cognitive uptake as if it settles the question of constitutive grounding. Look at section 4 where I press the transparency of belief argument. Belief is constitutively truth-aimed. The "this is how belief works" move isn't an avoidance of normativity. Rather, it's what shows Perry's view of normativity to be incoherent. You raise a decent worry with the "controls access" argument. Fully responding would require almost an essay in itself. But, let me say that when you redescribe the necessary condition as "effective authority that controls access," there's an equivocation on 'effective authority'. There's access-effective, which is trivially true. My cognitive uptake is causally necessary for any normative claim to take hold of me as an agent. Fair enough. This reading doesn't cut ice against SS. Then there's constitution-effective, which says that my judgment that p is what makes the obligation to believe that p exist. This is the claim Perry needs and my article shows can't be true given the transparency of belief. You seem to shift between these readings. The phrase "effective authority that controls access" sounds like 'effective authority' but the cash value ends up in 'controls access', which is the trivial access-effective disambiguation. Once I separate the readings, your move either proves nothing or assumes what it needs to prove (which I've applied pressure to show can't hold). I'll briefly reply to your other two points. The defeasibility dilemma you raise involves a false dilemma. You ask, "can an authority be indefinitely defeasible at the individual level and still be binding?" That's a good question, which I answer in Part 8. But it smuggles in the dilemma that the authority is either indefeasible such that it binds no matter what or it's not a real authority, namely it's mere advice. The third option is the one I argue for. It's defeasible authority as real and binding. It's the normative sort of epistemic authority that creates duties to inquire, presumptions, burdens of proof, while remaining overridable by sufficient counter evidence. You finish by throwing down the gauntlet, "your response doesn't answer where the locus of your normativity is, nor does it say why the individual isn't the final functioning authority." Well, let me say it plainly. The locus is Scripture and it's grounded in divine authorship. I have a whole thesis that does that work elsewhere on the grounding front. My Attribute Inscripturation Thesis (AIT) does that work. But, I responded to Perry before I had worked the AIT out, and I don't need it anyway. The key point here is just that Scripture's authority is constituted by God's speech. It's not constituted not by the conscience's reception of it. Why isn't the individual the final functioning authority? Because "final functioning authority" equivocates as my article explains. If it means "the agent whose cognitive states determine what they in fact come to believe," then yes, trivially, on every view. This sense doesn't distinguish SS from anything else. So it can't ground Perry's collapse argument. If it means "the source of obligation," then no. The individual can judge wrongly and be culpable for it. Culpability presupposes a normative standard that exists independent of the individual's judgment. If the individual were the source, mistaken judgment would be impossible by definition. I note this in Part 5. It would be a reductio of Perry's view.

@Meldougherty77 False bravado and machismo is beyond cringe. Its a giant psychological neon sign that reads: "I am deeply insecure. Literally confirmed docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/2f07d4_fde…

I have a new word for this woke right animosity and disdain for women: Meninism. My friend Amy Main says it best: "This counterfeit masculinity is much like feminism. Feminism's foundation is built on destroying men's character and blaming them for everything. Modern masculinity does the same thing, only for women." These men are just reverse feminists. They're modern menimists.

@redeemed_zoomer What does polymarket say?

So... is SSPX actually getting excommunicated or is this a "nothing ever happens" type situation

While Orthobros are defending paying for Baptism - “It’s for the choir” this Eastern Orthodox priest when asked about the Baptism fees said: “It’s hard to justify... None of that adds up to a meaningful service fee.”

@C2Antiquity @JayDyer @CapturingChrist @Fearless__Truth All bad churches in every denomination do “that” I’m shocked that EOs have decided to defend instead of calling out their brethren It’s not that hard to say “yeah … that’s not right” Maybe even send that parish / church a private note encouraging them to stop

@CapturingChrist @Fearless__Truth Cameron you do realize the Roman Catholic Church does this right?

This is such a larp. Call any Orthodox Church and ask them “i cant pay anything but i want to be baptized, do i need to pay?” The answer to every single one will be no.