Iansenius

Rest in peace Voddie Baucham.

@snaketrampler @blessedmikko @HosannaHosannaa The ritual interpretation doesn’t explain how it is that these demons took wives when it’s clear that it’s not possible for them too and how the conjugal act can be predicated to them

@blessedmikko @HosannaHosannaa The ritual hypothesis is completely in alignment with the Fathers, and preserves and synthesizes the two prevailing interpretations, without blanketly dismissing the concerns of the other. tumblr.com/kabane52/11735…

St. Philaret of Moscow’s rejection of the ressurected ancient error that the Nephilim are the descendants of fallen angels & human women, citing Matthew 22.30. ‘The first cause of the calamity of the first world Moses supposes to have been the irregular marriages of the sons of God with the daughters of men. Who are these sons of God? [...] According to the text of the Alexandrian Bible: the Angels of God. Lactantius holds this opinion […] and many of the ancients. Justin […] affirms that from the marriage of Angels with the daughters of men demons proceeded. Athenagoras places the fall of the angels in these very marriages, and from them also derives the giants. Tertullian […] ascribes to these angels the invention of astrology, precious stones, metals, and certain feminine ornaments. But all these traditions contradict the testimony of Jesus Christ, that angels do not marry (Matt. 22.30).’ –St. Philaret (Drozdov), Comm. on Gen. 6.1

@RefCathAmerican @caesar_beaver The wasians only typically produce self hating offspring because the mother often despises her race.

@caesar_beaver Clearly, my intent was to decry this mestizo/mulatto-supremacist's discriminatory hate towards wasians

Right-Wing Mulattoes against Racemixing disavow Anthony Bradley.

@Romantioch I have no credit

@iansenius If you have a 600+ credit score, are you really a trad?

Finally a real nigga

@7ummumbonum I don’t see how in the order of execution sanctification can precede justification given that God must first infuse a living faith into the person and regenerate them which implies sanctifying Grace

“Now although it be seriously disputed, whether Justification or Sanctification go before one another; and generally it is asserted, that in priority of nature a man is justified before he be sanctified, though they be both together in time; yet withal they acknowledge, that according to our sense and feeling, and the Method we must take for comfort, we apprehend our Sanctification before our Justification; and no man may persuade himself, that he is justified, who doth not discover in himself the fruits of Sanctification. The one is the fruit, the other is the tree: so that the Apostle may very well put sanctification first, because to our sense and apprehension it is so.“ —Anthony Burgess, Spiritual Refining, Serm. LXI

@JDavenant Do you think the virtues are infused in all baptized infants

The infallible magisterium of Westminster has spoken. Does the PCA hold to the original WCF?

@AgentCLol1 @lmperialGroyper

@iansenius @lmperialGroyper Agreed. But on the other side what if "marital rape," is actually a type of sexual immorality, infidelity and uncharitably? So we may say marital rape exists- but is falsely labeled under rape when it should be rather characterized as marital abuse.

Imagine waiting expectantly outside the gates of Heaven after wrestling your sobbing spouse to the ground and asking God to let you in. I’m crine 🫥🫥🫥🫥🫥🫥🫥🫥🫥🫥🫥🫥🫥nigga🫥🫥🫥🫥🫥🫥chud🫥🫥🫥🫥🫥🫥🫥🫥cvnt🫥🫥🫥🫥🫥🫥🫥

@Dogmaticist All the pre-moderns agreed with me btw

Average black guy on ethics be like:

@Thomisticae Make a substack on it

Although the way of speaking of John of St. Thomas, Salmanticenses (although they defend both positions), Billuart and others regarding the constitutive of the divine freedom is Thomistic and can be maintained, yet it cannot preserve freedom in God and leads to necessitarianism.

@logos_asarkos @Jerrsosaved @skyredpillguy @blessedabsalom Johann Fabricius

@iansenius @Jerrsosaved @skyredpillguy @blessedabsalom Which Fabricius are you talking about? The Lutheran and Reformed view are obviously different, not only semantically, but materially.

“Now Our Lord's Human Body is not subject to the laws of material existence, because His Body is a glorified Body, and therefore not an object to our senses, unless such be His own will.” - Robert Isaac Wilberforce; The Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist

@SarumCatholike @JDavenant The argument stands as a matter of principle. To overthrow the argument it’d have to be shown that the principle is wrong. Just because the Fathers had a different practice also doesn’t mean the principle doesn’t entail my conclusion.

@iansenius @JDavenant If the fathers you allude to also teach infant communion would that overthrow your argument, if not then how so?

WCF 27.5 “The sacraments of the Old Testament in regard to the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the new.” — 1 Cor 10:1-4 Paedocommunion is firmly established in the Old Covenant and not overturned in the New.

@SarumCatholike @JDavenant I can concede it’s a novel argument as far as the form. I think it’s materially present throughout scripture and principles in the Fathers

@iansenius @JDavenant You missed the point that you should be seeing. My comment didn't intend to explicitly debunk the argument but rather show the novelty of it which implicitly shows its erroneous framing. If it's not a novelty may you show fathers who make this argument contra infant communion

“I am not satisfied with the view of those who, while acknowledging that we have some kind of communion with Christ, only make us partakers of the Spirit, omitting all mention of flesh and blood.” Calvin, Institutes 4.17.7.

@LukasNectarios @EdwinNunez1646 Some reformed (like Calvin) may reject the semantics but agree as to substance. Calvin is clear on universal salvific will which is the minimal and substantial commitment of the antecedent-consequent will distinction (and the main thing SIIIG accuses Calvin of denying).

I haven’t yet seen the actual citation on Calvin tbf they cited later reformed authors I think siig should have worded it better tho and not said Calvinism and instead Calvin to which I would say there is a chapter where he seems to reject the distinction as siig said unless I’m missing something (open to such)

SIIG becoming a orthoslopologist was not on my 2026 bingo card. I knew he didn’t read early modern Calvinist authors, but I didn’t expect @EdwinNunez1646 to do him in like this.

@SarumCatholike @JDavenant Granting that’s true doesn’t harm the argument in anyway. The argument is independent of whatever reasons were cited by the hierarchy for reserving the sacrament from infants. Actual faith is necessary for worthy reception.

@iansenius @JDavenant That's just reformed justification for not practicing it. When you begin to see the restriction of infants from communion it has nothing to do with what you stated but rather scrupulosity over transubstantiation+ the expulsion of the host from infants.

@Jerrsosaved @skyredpillguy @blessedabsalom @logos_asarkos @SaultheCalovian I’d have to send it to you via discord

@iansenius @skyredpillguy @blessedabsalom Send me the work in dms but I don't think it's the case. @logos_asarkos and @SaultheCalovian can expound on this.

@Jerrsosaved @skyredpillguy @blessedabsalom Concludes it’s mostly semantic and the disagreements aren’t substantial but pertain to difference in terminology

@iansenius @skyredpillguy @blessedabsalom Haven't read it. What does he say?

@Jerrsosaved @skyredpillguy @blessedabsalom His examination of the dispute between the reformed and the Lutherans about Christ’s presence in the supper.

@iansenius @skyredpillguy @blessedabsalom In what sense?

@JDavenant @SarumCatholike What are you saying they were admitted to in the OC that bears a similarity to the Eucharist in the NC.

@iansenius @SarumCatholike God admitted them to it under the Old Covenant, and still admits them under the New. If they’re a part of the body, they are welcome to it.

@Jerrsosaved @skyredpillguy @blessedabsalom What do you make of Fabricius

@skyredpillguy @blessedabsalom Yes