Fr. Gilde

“I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” -Jesus (Mt 16:18). The church is the body of Christ -Paul (Colossians 1:18 & 1:24). Anyone not remaining in me will be thrown out -Jesus (Jn 15:6). •For 2000 years Jesus has been building up His church.

Papal primacy does not appear in the Middle Ages. It appears in the first three generations after the apostles. Three writers. Three different locations. Three different decades. All treating Rome's authority as an established fact. Clement of Rome wrote to the church in Corinth to correct disorder there. Nobody invited him. No Corinthian council asked Rome to weigh in. He simply wrote with the tone of someone who had standing to do so, and commanded the restoration of deposed presbyters. That assumption of jurisdiction is the evidence. Ignatius of Antioch wrote seven letters on his way to martyrdom. Six of them correct local problems. The letter to Rome corrects nothing. He also singles Rome out with honorific language he uses for no other church, calling her the one that "presides in love" over the rest. That phrase appears nowhere in his other six letters. Irenaeus of Lyon, writing from Gaul against the Gnostics, needed a test for apostolic truth. He chose Rome. Not Jerusalem. Not Antioch. Not Alexandria. Rome, because of what he calls her "more powerful principality" and her unbroken succession from Peter and Paul. Italy. Syria. Gaul. Three different regions of the ancient world. No coordinated project connecting them. Their convergence is independent attestation, not a Roman propaganda campaign. This is not a medieval invention. This is the record of the first post-apostolic generations. The question worth asking: if Rome's primacy was a later power grab, why did three of the earliest writers outside the New Testament treat it as already given?

@17Jefferson76 @Rob952046756664 @SaintEcclesia @sarahdunham23 You had me until you added Catholic since the term precludes various qualifications by its basic definition of being universal.

@Rob952046756664 @SaintEcclesia @sarahdunham23 I'm a neo classical southern Orthodox unreformed Calvanist Catholic. The fee for my baptism was 300 dollars, but I had a coupon. We use Dasani water because it has been fortified with minerals. My church teaches that anyone who doesn't think like we do is a heretic.

@SaintEcclesia @sarahdunham23 I could try if you have the time. I guess we would have to narrow down which of the 50,000 odd prot denominations - you identify as , before we get started. Given I was talking in general terms above.

@OpStCyprian @TradReform @Aaronaeus @JimmyAkin3000 Misinterpretations causes the problem here. “And why not say-as we are accused and as some claim we say-that we should sin that good may come of it?”-Romans 3:8. Anyone who can read this correctly, sees Paul explaining that people accuse him of saying we can freely sin.

@GPriest7 @TradReform @Aaronaeus @JimmyAkin3000 Can you explain why Paul in Romans 6:1 and earlier on in Romans 3 expects an objection that we can sin all we want so grace may abound after teaching justification? An objection your position would never lead to.

Ryan got cooked.

@TradReform @Aaronaeus @JimmyAkin3000 By the context in Romans 3:21 -> Paul is referring to the “law & prophets” =Old Covenant. His point comes from Peter in Acts 15:11 “We are saved by grace”. All the debate was over circumcision = the law. The Old Law exists, but Christians follow the Law of Christ ~Galatians 6:2.

@GPriest7 @Aaronaeus @JimmyAkin3000 It’s added in the sense of clarification in Romans. “We hold that a man is justified by faith apart from (χωρίς) works of the law.” The adverb makes the justifying faith stand apart, and act by itself, but it does not have its source in man. Then he spends 4-6, expounding.

@TradReform @Aaronaeus @JimmyAkin3000 I’m not sure why the word “alone” is added to Romans 3:28 because then people go on to say that faith alone without works is dead faith. Living faith is different than dead faith. What makes them different is the faith working in love so this faith isn’t “alone”.

@GPriest7 @Aaronaeus @JimmyAkin3000 Me: Hey, Paul: How is one justified before God? Paul: By faith alone (Rom 3:28), duh. In fact, God himself tells us that the only way that one can hope live is by faith (Rom 1:17). Me: But what about works? Paul: James? James: True faith produces good works (Js 2:14ff).

@Aaronaeus @TradReform @JimmyAkin3000 Justification is explained by a reflection from Jimmy Akins: youtu.be/hazyiLJldak?si…

Catholic apologist @JimmyAkin3000 addresses this kind of argument in his book The Drama of Salvation by pointing out that many salvation debates collapse because people start inventing distinctions Scripture itself never makes. The claim that “saving faith is always the verb form while the noun form is non-saving faith” simply does not hold up biblically or linguistically. Greek constantly moves between pistis (faith, noun) and pisteuō (believe, verb) to describe the same saving reality. Paul says: —“Since we are justified by faith (pistis)” in Romans 5:1 —“By grace you have been saved through faith (pistis)” in Ephesians 2:8 Those are noun forms describing salvation. Akin would likely say the issue in Matthew 17 and 1 Corinthians 13 is context, not grammar. Those passages are discussing miracle-working faith, not the fullness of saving faith formed through love and obedience. Catholics already agree that not every kind of faith saves. James says even demons “believe” (James 2:19). The distinction is not noun versus verb. The distinction is between dead faith, a faith without love and without the works that flow from love powered by grace, and living faith, a faithful, obedient faith working through love (Galatians 5:6; Romans 1:17). I highly recommend reading the book.

FYI: AI is being designed to out-think even its creators and ultimately secure its supremacy. What could go wrong with this kind of programming?

@dommy94135 @cawsey_emery @BreeSolstad The reformers still knew how to read Scripture in the context of the culture to realize the brothers of Jesus were his cousins. Just like Mary also having a sister named Mary of Clopas at the cross (John 19:25). This other Mary had a son named James -> the brother of Jesus.

@cawsey_emery @BreeSolstad You- "Thank God for the reformation...nothing of this is biblical and frankly it reeks of paganism" Meanwhile here's what the so called "reformers" thought of the Perpetual Virgin Mary- 👀👇🏿

“Many souls go to Hell because there are none to sacrifice themselves and to pray for them.” -Our Lady of Fatima Believe. Heed her call, and be more disciplined in daily prayers for sinners. I know I will be. We can save souls!

@Lewbr2010 @victor8k @HWLinvest All of these were on the same plane? I wonder what the conversation was for 14 hours.

I don't say this often but you are an idiot. These are not some rich fan boys. These are whose who of US industry. Elon Musk — CEO of Tesla and SpaceX Jensen Huang — CEO of Nvidia Tim Cook — CEO of Apple Larry Fink — CEO of BlackRock Kelly Ortberg — CEO of Boeing Stephen Schwarzman — CEO of Blackstone Dina Powell McCormick — President/Vice Chair of Meta Ryan McInerney — CEO of Visa Michael Miebach — CEO of Mastercard Jane Fraser — CEO of Citigroup (Citi) David Solomon — CEO of Goldman Sachs Brian Sikes — CEO of Cargill Sanjay Mehrotra — CEO of Micron Technology Cristiano Amon — CEO of Qualcomm H. Lawrence Culp (Larry Culp) — CEO of GE Aerospace Jacob Thaysen — CEO of Illumina Jim Anderson — CEO of Coherent

Glöm allt ni lärt er om internationell politik, reglerna skrevs precis om. När landade en president senast med hela Wall Street och Silicon Valley i släptåg? Trump i Peking med Musk, Cook och BlackRock är ren maktprojektion. Media pratar om att Trump är "pressad", men sanningen är att han just tog med sig hela USA:s BNP till förhandlingsbordet. Etablissemanget hoppas väl innerligt att Xi ska ”läxa upp” Trump, medan verkligheten är att Peking precis fick besök av de personer som faktiskt äger infrastrukturen de lever på. Vem tror ni darrar mest just nu: Xi Jinping eller en genomsnittlig svensk ledarskribent på Aftonbladet?

@Sachinettiyil @TwiterusMaximus 45 years ago (today-May 13) Pope John Paul II was shot by an assassin. According to doctors, it should have killed him. He replied: One finger pulled the trigger Another finger guided the bullet. He place the bullet in Mary’s crown at Fatima.

They said Catholic faith is dead in Europe Meanwhile Fatima today: 250000 Catholics proclaiming their faith

@Joe_Palooka_2 @BillArnoldTeach Parents don’t only make their children take baths. Christian Parents teach them to pray before bed. A child can talk to Jesus and have great confidence in the Lord. Baptism makes a person a member of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:12). Let the Holy Spirit work as early as He pleases.

The only thing “dishonest” here is using physical hygiene to find an “out” for the Nuclear Requirement of Faith. 1. The Conscience Receipt: God’s Truth says baptism is “NOT the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience” (1 Peter 3:21). A parent can give a child a bath, but they cannot perform a spiritual appeal for a conscience that doesn't yet have the capacity to believe. 2. The “Disease” Wall: You imply a child is in danger without this ritual, yet Jesus declared the kingdom BELONGS to them already (Matthew 19:14). They don't need a man-made “bath” to be initiated into a kingdom the King says is already theirs. 3. The Household Receipt: You keep tossing out Acts 16:34, but that verse explicitly says the whole household “BELIEVED IN GOD.” Faith is a personal response, not a parental “mandatory principle.” I’ll stick with the Diamond that says faith comes through hearing the Word, while you “shadowbox” with stinky babies to justify your unauthorized additions. He who has ears, let him hear.

He went looking for proof against infant baptism. Instead, he found the Catholic Church. Watch this carefully.

@Joe_Palooka_2 @BillArnoldTeach Parents don’t ask their child if he wants a bath. The parents demand it lest he smell or even worse develop disease. Parents clothe their baby to protect him. Yet, you claim that only in the Old Covenant could parents bring a child into a covenant with God.

The only thing “dishonest” here is a managed script that has to invent a “Straw Man” about parental authority to avoid the Nuclear Requirement of Faith. 1. The Belief Receipt: You cite Acts 16:34 and 18:8, yet both verses explicitly state the households BELIEVED in God. A parent can command a child to clean their room; they cannot command a child's heart to believe. 2. The Apostolic Pattern: In every “household” baptism you listed, the Logos identifies individual faith as the catalyst. You are trying to turn a spiritual rebirth into a civil mandatory principle. 3. The Individual Wall: One person cannot “believe” for another any more than they can go to the bathroom for another. I’ll stick with the Diamond that says “everyone who believes” receives forgiveness (Acts 10:43), while you “shadowbox” with household management. He who has ears, let him hear.

@Joe_Palooka_2 @BillArnoldTeach You’re free to believe God doesn’t give Christian parents the authority to run their households with mandatory principles. It’d explain such doubts about how “whole households” weren’t actually “whole households” being baptized see: Acts 11:14 Acts 16:15 Acts 16:34 & Acts 18:8.

The only thing “filtered” here is an institutional script that treats the Holy Spirit like a physical commodity. 1. The Gold Wall: You can deposit gold into a bank for a child, but you cannot deposit an “appeal for a good conscience” into their soul (1 Peter 3:21). Faith is a personal response, not a parental inheritance. 2. The “Prerequisite” Receipt: You call individual belief a “lens,” but the Logos calls it a Requirement. Mark 16:16 (NASB) explicitly links Belief and Baptism. By removing belief, you are invalidating the Word of God for the sake of your tradition. 3. The Substance Receipt: A parent’s responsibility is to teach the Word so that the child may one day “believe with all their heart” (Acts 8:37). Performing the ritual before the faith exists is “shadowboxing” with human philosophy. I’ll stick with the Diamond that says faith comes through hearing the Word, not through a parental proxy. He who has ears, let him hear.

@Joe_Palooka_2 @BillArnoldTeach Your filtered lens imposes personal belief as a prerequisite for baptism. Parents can save gold for a child before he knows what it is. They’ll instruct their child about the value of gold. God gave parents the responsibility to form a child’s conscience to appeal to the good.

The only thing “identified” here is that you are using God’s Truth to find an “out” for your man-made ritual. 1. The Belief Receipt: You cite the serpent in John 3:14, but you ignore that the fulfillment is specifically for “whoever BELIEVES” (v. 15). An infant cannot exercise the Nuclear Prerequisite of faith. 2. The Conscience Receipt: You cite 1 Peter 3:21, but that verse defines baptism as an “appeal to God for a good conscience.” A parent cannot appeal for the conscience of a child. 3. The Substance Wall: Every shadow you listed points to a spiritual reality that requires individual response. I’ll stick with the Diamond that stands alone while you “shadowbox” with unexplained verses. He who has ears, let him hear.

@Joe_Palooka_2 @BillArnoldTeach The New Testament does not disregard the “shadows” but uses them to identify the New Covenant Fulfillments. 1. As Jonah was in the whale’s belly 3 days =Matthew 12:40 2. As Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert =John 3:14 3. Noah and ark prefigured baptism =1 Peter 3:21.

The only thing “disregarded” here is the Nuclear Power of the New Covenant. Jesus did indeed fulfill the Law, and God’s Truth tells us how: “those things were a mere shadow... but the substance belongs to Christ” (Colossians 2:17). You’re trying to use a “shadow” (circumcision) to justify a ritual (infant baptism) that has no Apostolic Pattern in the New Testament. The New Covenant is NOT LIKE the Old; it is built on individual faith, not parental proxy. I’ll stick with the Substance while you stay in the Shadows to justify your unauthorized traditions. He who has ears, let him hear.

@Joe_Palooka_2 @BillArnoldTeach Jesus said: “I did not come to abolish the law and the prophets but to fulfill them” ~Matthew 5:17. Disregard for the Old Covenant practices originally implemented by the Divine Will causes people to misunderstand how God has brought them to their fulfillment in the New Covenant.

The only thing “man-made” here is an institutional ritual that has to use Old Covenant shadows to ignore the Nuclear Requirement of Faith. 1. The Faith Wall: Baptism is a burial and resurrection that happens through “FAITH in the working of God” (Colossians 2:12). You are trying to perform a spiritual surgery on someone who cannot yet believe. 2. The Deeds Receipt: You quote Titus 3:5 while ignoring that it says we are saved “NOT on the basis of deeds.” Your ritual is a human deed performed by a parent; the Apostolic Pattern is a response of individual faith. 3. The Jesus Receipt: Jesus said the kingdom BELONGS to the little ones. They are already initiated by the King’s decree (Matthew 19:14). I’ll stick with the Diamond while you “shadowbox” with circumcision to justify your unauthorized additions. He who has ears, let him hear.

@Joe_Palooka_2 @BillArnoldTeach The man-made script that a baby can’t be baptized ignores signs of the Old Covenant when circumcision could initiate babies into covenant with God. “Not because of any work but because of bath of rebirth & the Holy Spirit, Christ is poured on us” ~Titus 3:5.

The only thing “activated” here is an institutional script that substitutes human psychology for God’s Truth. 1. The Faith Receipt: God’s Truth says “faith comes from hearing... the word of Christ” (Romans 10:17). You claim a parent “activates” a child's faith, yet the Apostolic Pattern always requires the individual to “Repent and be baptized” (Acts 2:38). 2. The Kingdom Receipt: Jesus already declared that the kingdom BELONGS to the little ones. They don't need a parent to “activate” a membership they already have by the King’s decree. 3. The Individual Wall: One person cannot “believe” for another any more than they can repent for another. You are negating the Spirit and Life of the New Covenant by returning to a biological/proxy system. I’ll stick with the Diamond that says “he who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). He who has ears, let him hear.

@Joe_Palooka_2 @BillArnoldTeach The Apostolic pattern is to build upon Christ as the foundation. Every baptized person becomes a member of Christ (see 1 Corinthians 12:13). There are no age restrictions. Children are malleable. Their faith is activated by parents’ faith. The enemy tries to get them young too.

The only thing “authoritative” here is an institutional script that has to use a parent's social status to ignore the Nuclear Requirement of Faith. 1. The Faith Wall: Baptism is the “appeal to God for a good conscience” (1 Peter 3:21). A parent’s authority doesn't grant them the power to appeal for another's conscience. 2. The Household Receipt: You claim children are included in household baptisms, but the Logos says those households believed in God. You are invalidating the Word of God for the sake of your tradition. 3. The Jesus Receipt: Jesus said the kingdom BELONGS to the little ones. He didn't say it “will belong” once you perform a ritual. I’ll stick with the Apostolic Pattern of Believe and be Baptized while you “shadowbox” with human philosophy. He who has ears, let him hear.

@Joe_Palooka_2 @BillArnoldTeach Such an argument that the “little ones” already belongs to Him would mean anyone who obeys and becomes like little ones (see Matthew 18:3) also already belongs to God. Children are under the authority of their parents. If the whole household gets baptized so then are children.

The only thing “found” here is a managed narrative that substitutes human philosophy for God’s Truth. You claim “whole households” authorize infant baptism, yet every household baptism in the Logos was tied to the household believing in God. Jesus declared the little ones already belong to His kingdom (Matthew 19:14). I’ll stick with the Apostolic Pattern of Repentance and Faith while you “shadowbox” with Old Covenant shadows to justify your ritual. The Diamond stands alone. He who has ears, let him hear.

@GBNCOC There are so many lies circulating about the church. With knowledge literally at our fingertips, there's really no excuse anymore. These days, people are choosing to believe lies.