Christian Royale

@blessedmikko Idk where this Ananias and the other guy got their PHDs. The fact he doesn’t know one of their favourite theologians had the same position as the one they were mocking is mad.

What “Orthodox” modernists won’t tell you in their demonic mockery of Augustine is that Maximus not only agreed explicitly with Augustine that the “ancestral curse & condemnation” was transmitted through the lust involved in sexual reproduction—he actually goes so far as to affirm that sexual reproduction, marriage & even sexual diffrentiation (see Ambiguum 41) were not God’s original intention, which is something Augustine actually rejected, seeing marriage & reproduction (albeit without the involvement of lust & carnal pleasure as is experienced post-Fall) as divinely ordained. ‘Since the original intention of God was not for us to be born through intercourse that takes place in a marriage and corruption—it was the transgression of the commandment that introduced marriage because Adam disobeyed, that is, rejected the law given to him from God—therefore, then all who are born of Adam are “conceived in iniquity” and fall under the forefather’s sentence of condemnation (ὑποπίπτοντες τῇ τοῦ προπάτορος καταδίκῃ). And ”and in sin did my mother bear me” signifies that Eve, the mother of us all, first conceived sin by becoming wanton for pleasure. Because of this, we, too, falling under the sentence of the mother, are said to be conceived in sin.’ –St. Maximus the Confessor, Questions & Doubts, I.3 ‘..after the transgression, all human beings possessed pleasure as something naturally antecedent to their proper birth, and absolutely no one was by nature free from an impassioned birth conditioned by pleasure. Experiencing pain and sufferings as if in payment of a natural debt, all human beings had to submit to death, which followed upon their sufferings. Consequently the way to freedom was barred for all who were subject to the tyranny of unrighteous pleasure and just sufferings, and who because of these just sufferings were naturally subject to a most just death.’ –Ad Thal, 61.4 As St. Maximus goes on to explain immediately after in Ad Thal 61, as I broke down in my explanation of original sin in St. Maximus there a few months ago, the death of a man that did not have his principle in pleasure (which would therefore in a sense be unjust) was necessary to break the pleasure-sin cycle & allow for the possibility of atonement.

@AqidaDefence @MMetaphysician Yeah he’s saying that the object manifesting is uncreated but when that object manifests in time that manifestation in time is created. If English is not your first language you may not have noticed that he changed the emphasis in the second sentence, clarifying the distinction

[@ 1:45] [T]he manifestation itself was uncreated but manifestation itself was created. Lmaoo, brother @MMetaphysician out here putting Christians in a dilemma 🤣🤣🤣

@ProvisionistP It is proving the Calvanists right when they say provisions is a slippery slope to Pelagius. Wesley and Arminius tried to deny Calvanism but keep the rest of the faith. Their decedents are now denying the Protestant doctrine of justification, total depravity, original sin ect.

Rejection of judicial imputation/declaration of sin and righteousness is not a rejection of the Gospel.

@The_Idol_Killer @AnaniasFather @C2Antiquity A useful analogy is how a person might will to cross the sea. The end goal (crossing the sea) is fixed, but the means (boat, plane, etc.) can vary. Similarly, God wills certain ends but allows different ways of reaching them.

@The_Idol_Killer @AnaniasFather @C2Antiquity When applied to God’s will: • God necessarily wills His own goodness, because His goodness is the proper object of His will—it is part of His very nature. Things outside of God are willed contingently, because they are not necessary for His own perfection.

If you haven't already seen it, check out Fr. Stephen De Young, Alex Sorin, Ben (Cleave to Antiquity), Warren McGrew, and myself refute the Demon-Goblin PSA-Tards in Cleave's recent stream: youtube.com/live/J0RKTvGia…

@The_Idol_Killer @AnaniasFather @C2Antiquity Yes and I am of course aware of the modal collapse argument and I would hope you are already aware of the scholastic response to it. If you are not aware I can answer it for you but it will take a couple messages due to word limits.

@SaintAust @AnaniasFather @C2Antiquity Was God free to create or not create?

@The_Idol_Killer @AnaniasFather @C2Antiquity Is God free to not be God? I affirm that God can do whatever he wills.

@SaintAust @AnaniasFather @C2Antiquity I dont care what label you give yourself, youve argued for Necessitarianism, a rejection of divine freedom.

@The_Idol_Killer @AnaniasFather @C2Antiquity Fatalism is pagan terminology. I am a Calvinist and Calvin explains in the institutes the distinction between fatalism and providence. I didn’t even intend to start an open theism debate I just wanted to know why @AnaniasFather collaborated with a Protestant open theist.

@SaintAust @AnaniasFather @C2Antiquity Still arguing for fatalism.

@The_Idol_Killer @AnaniasFather @C2Antiquity If God does not determine the future but merely knows all the propositions his knowledge isn’t perfect. Take quantum mechanics where scientists know everything about the wave length yet they cannot know for certain where it will collapse into a Proton.

@SaintAust @AnaniasFather @C2Antiquity You just denied divine freedom and fallen into Necessitarianism. Youre begging the question for strict fatalism. God is never wrong about the future. He has exhaustive, perfect omniscience... and is free - not fated!

@The_Idol_Killer @AnaniasFather @C2Antiquity Yeah you think that there are moments in God’s life where future contingent values of proportions are not completely settled. To me this view clearly seems to imply God has the metaphysical possibility of being wrong about the future, even if he happens to always be correct.

@SaintAust @AnaniasFather @C2Antiquity Can you Steelman my view and tell me what specifically is heretical and where it was condemned?

@The_Idol_Killer @AnaniasFather @C2Antiquity The Eastern Orthodox hold to the consensus of the Fathers. St Augustine says in City of God Book XI, God knows all things by seeing them simultaneously in eternity. Do you agree with Augustine here? If not we can go to a different Fathers who will make the same point.

@SaintAust @AnaniasFather @C2Antiquity Go ahead and Steelman my view, then point us to where it was condemned.

@the_primuspilus @AnaniasFather @C2Antiquity @The_Idol_Killer Does he make collaboration videos with Arians?

@SaintAust @AnaniasFather @C2Antiquity @The_Idol_Killer Everybody knows its a heresy. Whats next? Fr Deacon having to reaffirm Nicea 1?

@AnaniasFather @C2Antiquity Will you condemn @The_Idol_Killer’s heresy regarding open theism?

@SaintAust @C2Antiquity Go cry more! I will attack your false gospel all I want. Get off my X!

All the Catholic in the comments suddenly no longer believe in submitting to your bishop.

@ProvisionistP It’s not @TheOrthoEnsign’s fault you don’t understand basic semantics. God is by definition all powerful and all knowing. If you change the definition of God to a limited being then you are no longer a theist in the way Christianity defines theism. You become a pagan atheist.

//Atheism (noun) /ˈeɪ.θi.ɪ.zəm/: the fact of not believing in any god or gods, or the belief that no god or gods exist.// These people are unserious thinkers. The THEISM is right there in its name.

@Blue_Footy Do you not watch English football? English fans don’t chant when their team is losing.

Why are fewer PSG fans louder than Chelsea fans since kick-off at Stamford Bridge? You will say, it's the recent poor form but we just can't allow that in our house.