Sabitlenmiş Tweet
sillo
1.2K posts
sillo
@vaticansillo
Catholic https://t.co/UExu1dujvx https://t.co/ICBSTuyPmf
Katılım Ekim 2025
39 Takip Edilen113 Takipçiler
@Canonandcreed @OrthodoxyAG "He [King David] estimates and judges of his happiness from this that in this way he is righteous not in reality, but by imputation."
English
This is just old Romanist rhetoric from 500 years ago that the EO also parrot. And it’s a confused use of the word nominalism.
We don’t teach that God merely calls someone righteous while nothing is actually true of them. We teach that believers are truly united to Christ, and because of that union His righteousness is truly theirs. Is Jesus’s righteousness that we participate in fictional?
The forensic verdict isn’t fictional or “nominal” it’s God’s judicial declaration concerning a real covenantal union.
That what Barrett is getting at.
It’s why the Reformers consistently grounded justification in union with Christ. God isn’t pretending I rendered Christ’s obedience and am righteous. He’s declaring that Christ’s obedience legally belongs to me because Christ is my covenant Head.
Furthermore, we explicitly reject the idea that salvation consists only of a legal declaration. Notice you are confusing the basis of justification with the entirety of salvation.
Sanctification isn’t “a nice part of the package” when it’s an inseparable benefit of union with Christ like all the others. So, yes, the debate is over whether our inherent righteousness is the ground of God’s judicial acceptance.
But saying “no” to that isn’t therefore nominalism.
English
“The Reformers reacted against the nominalist soteriology of the via moderna as represented by Ockham and Biel. By contrast, the Reformers did in fact put forward a strong participation theology with their doctrine of union with Christ, a doctrine that made room for the duplex gratia, the double grace of justification and sanctification."—Matthew Barrett (@MattMBarrett); Reformation as Renewal (Zondervan Academic), pg. 206
Defiant Ghost@TheDefiantGhost
Jay Dyer on Tucker Carlson: How Medieval Philosophy Nominalism created modern transgender ideology: “Nominalism is the idea that there are only names to things, not essences. So there’s no human nature. No dog nature. The ancient world believed things have real essences. Words described metaphysical reality. Occam started denying that. It influenced Luther. Then Hume, Kant, the Enlightenment… If things don’t have essences, then they don’t have genders objectively — everything is just a name. So I can just name myself he, him, Zer, Z. That’s the logical train from medieval philosophy to postmodern gender ideology. It flies in the face of lived experience. You basically have to be indoctrinated to believe it.”
English
English
@OrthodoxyAG @Canonandcreed Sanctification is necessary for salvation on the Protestant view, so is baptism. We distinguish what saves and what is the necessary and good consequence of the saving faith. It is a difference of the mechanism of salvation (being faith) and sanctification…
English
@truefamilyblood @Alex_Ortodoxie So basically monastics
Bialystok, Poland 🇵🇱 English
St Basil was a bishop who taught laypeople to obey the councils of the church, which James White doesn’t do.
White is the archetypal “sovereign citizen” Christian.
“I read the Bible MY way!”
“Nicaea 2 isn’t binding on me!”
“Well in MY reading of the Bible…”
Blah blah blah
𝔚𝔥𝔦𝔱𝔢𝔅𝔢𝔞𝔯𝔡@HwsEleutheroi
A few quotes from Basil: The hearers taught in the Scriptures ought to test what is said by teachers and accept that which agrees with the Scriptures but reject that which is foreign. (Basil, Moralia, 72:1) If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth. (Basil, Ep. ad Eustathius, NPNF II, 8:229) We ought carefully to examine whether the doctrine offered us is conformable to Scripture, and if not, to reject it. Nothing must be added to the inspired words of God; all that is outside Scripture is not of faith, but is sin. (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series: Prolegomena, 2. Work, 3. Ascetic (iii).) Be careful when you see counter citations, such as Basil, Epistle 51.2, where he writes, "To refuse to follow the Fathers, not holding their declaration of more authority than one's own opinion, is conduct worthy of blame, as being brimful of self-sufficiency." The context were individuals who were uncomfortable using the term homoousios. This was written in 370, so the memory of Ariminum and Sirmium was still fresh. All that Basil said must be taken into account to represent him fairly. Fair Protestants can allow him to be the product of his time. RCs and EOs will be forced to make him speak as they speak.
English
@SarumCatholike Since you will continue to attempt to reconcile the contradiction, do you confess that the fathers of ecumenical councils are inspired and their words, as an independent entity, are to be accepted as equal to Scripture
English
@SarumCatholike How you interpret Scripture is not in question and you reinterpreted the articles. They state that a council has no binding authority unless it proves itself by Scripture. And nobody in these ages believed that a general council could err.
English
Contra Sola Scriptura:
To refuse to follow the Fathers, not holding their declaration of more authority than one’s own opinion, is conduct worthy of blame, as being brimful of self-sufficiency.
Basil Epistle 52.1
English
@SarumCatholike The claim is not that councils don't cite Scripture, it is that they do not need to because they are not beneath Scripture. The 39 Articles deny.
English
Show me a council that didn't substantiate the preserved teaching/tradition of the faith with scripture. If you can't then Article XXI stands firm since it's not saying one can reject a General Council on the basis of what they think scripture means. You're attacking sola scriptura, so maybe do that under a Gavin Ortlund video because that it's not what has been articulated above.
English
@SarumCatholike Every council claims to be the voice of the Church. Your articles claim that these councils have no authority unless their propositions are proven out of Scripture. Whoever you think does the proving doesn’t matter to me, you still subordinate the council to Scripture.
English
Reread my message. Scripture interpreted by Catholic consensus i.e. the Church. Every layman has the duty to submit themselves to this consensus. The Church holds within herself the preserved apostolic deposit of faith. For you to take issue with my above statement would mean you think someone should submit to something that contradicts Scripture(Catholic Consensus on a doctrine), just incase you forgot already, NOT my own understanding of Scripture.
English
@SarumCatholike That is exactly what I’m saying you believe. You think that Scripture is the highest authority and will only accept a proposition of the faith as true if it can be demonstrated out of Scripture. This position is anathematized by Nicaea.
English
Yup but I know you haven't done any research into the anglican position
on the Rule of Faith. If you did you'd know that the Scriptures as interpreted by Catholic Consensus is the rule by which we judge all other authorities. If a council styles itself a General Council and contradicts scripture it can by no means be considered binding. See St. Vincent's Commonitorium.
"For our Divines hold, that the right of definitive judgment, in matters of Faith, is to be given to synods of Bishops, and other learned Ministers of the Church, chosen and convened for this purpose, according to the usage of the Ancient Church: who shall determine, from the Holy Scriptures, explained by the consent of the Ancient Church, and not by the rival spirit of Neoterics.” -Bishop Overall, Letter to Grotius.
English
@SarumCatholike “Wherefore things ordained by them [councils] as necessary to
salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out
of Holy Scripture.”
English
@vaticansillo Incorrect, but you can make your case if you wish
English
@SarumCatholike @Craig_Truglia What I asked if you anathematize is exactly what your 39 Articles teach.
English
@vaticansillo @Craig_Truglia yea thats not submitting to the consensus patrum. Thats using the "Right private judgement" which is completely circular and self defeating. Anglicans are supposed to submit to the consensus of the fathers. Richard Field says it's infallible
English
@SarumCatholike @Craig_Truglia I should say this to you, do you anathematize those who follow tradition only if they find it to agree with Scripture
English
@vaticansillo @Craig_Truglia whatever helps you sleep at night
English
sillo retweetledi
@BUnderwood94372 @ShamelessPopery @ThoughtfulSaint God elects before considering how youll use your free will, read Romans 9
English
Catholics… what say ye…
The “Doctor” Rblv73@Rblv73
Is predestination an infallible teaching of the Catholic Church?
English
@DoorDashThomist @ShamelessPopery @TD_Barrett @ThoughtfulSaint @EdwinNunez1646 You affirm this as Thomistic?
English
@ShamelessPopery @TD_Barrett @ThoughtfulSaint You can’t actually be this ignorant…
@EdwinNunez1646 cook him
(Synod of Dort)⬇️
English
@ShamelessPopery @ThoughtfulSaint Is it fair to say that people are predestined for hell and heaven, but both are based on our free will to reject or accept God?
English
@vktmaxi @neverlie @TouchlineX show you from what, you son of satan? am I supposed to find a match replay and watch the game all over to get you a screen recording? you didn’t watch the game so get out of my mentions, you depraved demon.
English
@vaticansillo @neverlie @TouchlineX all say and no show just like any other retarded penaldo fan, how can i recall something that didn’t happen?
English
🚨 𝗕𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗞𝗜𝗡𝗚: THE REFEREE IS SEND TO THE SCREEN TO CHECK THE YELLOW CARD FOR PAREDES!
HE INSTEAD GIVES THE SECOND YELLOW CARD FOR EMBOLO!
English
@vktmaxi @neverlie @TouchlineX I’m not giving you clips, clown, if you watched the game you can recall it
English