⛨ Aaronaeus ⛨

Catholic Convert 🇻🇦Husband & Father ✝️ Jesus is LORD 🛐 Bible Study Leader 📖 Conservative 🇺🇸 Abortion Abolitionist 👶🏻👶🏾

[⛨ Aaronaeus ⛨ @Aaronaeus]

Dort’s answer is that God guarantees perseverance and uses commands, warnings, and exhortations as the means to accomplish it.

My question is why Scripture treats these warnings as real dangers if the outcome is already guaranteed.

Saying “read Dort” just restates the Calvinist position; it doesn’t resolve the tension.

[⛨ Aaronaeus ⛨ @Aaronaeus]

Question for Calvinists:

Why does Paul tell believers to “do your best to present yourself to God as one approved” (2 Tim. 2:15)?

I was told good works are the inevitable byproduct of justification.

Seems odd for Paul to command effort if it’s all on autopilot.

[⛨ Aaronaeus ⛨ @Aaronaeus]

@metathomist @WilsonAndr92194

[⛨ Aaronaeus ⛨ @Aaronaeus]

@WilsonAndr92194 @metathomist That’s what I was thinking, but I wasnt sure.

Also Jeff Durbin is in Arizona right?

[⛨ Aaronaeus ⛨ @Aaronaeus]

@CharlesTingler @MimiSchizo I have that one, but the note taking version. Extra room on the sides is awesome!

[⛨ Aaronaeus ⛨ @Aaronaeus]

@BaptistClips

[⛨ Aaronaeus ⛨ @Aaronaeus]

Paul is criticizing specific Jewish persecutors in 1 Thessalonians 2:14–15, not all Jews for all time.

If that passage means “the Jews killed Jesus,” how do you explain Romans? Paul still says the Gospel is “to the Jew first” (Rom. 1:16), calls Israel beloved because of the patriarchs, and expects that “all Israel will be saved” (Rom. 11:26–29).

The biblical reality is that Christ died because of the sins of humanity. Jews, Gentiles, Romans, and every sinner share responsibility. As Peter says, Jesus was handed over according to God’s plan, yet those involved acted freely (Acts 2:23).

If my sins made Christ’s death necessary, I can’t point the finger exclusively at the Jews.

[⛨ Aaronaeus ⛨ @Aaronaeus]

@Riley_Gaines_ Down Syndrome lives matter

[⛨ Aaronaeus ⛨ @Aaronaeus]

With respect, I think you’re underestimating just how serious the Arian controversy actually was.

Talk to any serious historian of early Christianity and they’ll tell you that Arianism was no joke. Entire regions of the Christian world were affected by it. Many bishops embraced it. For a time it seemed as though the Arians might actually win.

That’s why Nicaea mattered.

And this is precisely why St. Vincent of Lérins wrote:

“Because of the intricacies of error, which is so multiform, there is great need to fortify the interpretation of the prophets and apostles with the standard of ecclesiastical and Catholic understanding.”

In other words, Scripture alone was not enough to stop the Arians, because the Arians quoted Scripture too.

The question was never, “Who has Bible verses?”

The question was, “Who is interpreting them correctly?”

The Nicene Creed became the rule by which Christians could distinguish orthodox belief from heresy. Without it, every Arian could simply say, “I have my Bible and my interpretation.”

To be ignorant of history is to risk repeating it.

And I would argue we’re already seeing that happen. Variations of Nestorian thinking are common in evangelical circles today. Many Christians speak of Jesus in ways that effectively divide His humanity and divinity into separate subjects, which is exactly the type of confusion the Council of Ephesus was called to address.

The great councils were not merely “men talking.”

They were the Church defending the apostolic faith against competing interpretations of Scripture.

[⛨ Aaronaeus ⛨ @Aaronaeus]

So true

[MrCasey @MrCasey62]

“Catholicism is like a lion; it doesn't need to be defended, just understood. Most Protestant objections are based on misconceptions, not the real teachings of the Church.”

~ Peter Kreeft, former Calvinist, now Catholic theologian, philosopher, apologist & university professor

[⛨ Aaronaeus ⛨ @Aaronaeus]

Sick & disgusting.

For both our pregnancies my wife & I refused to get the chromosomal karyotype test for Down’s Syndrome. Because it didn’t matter to us one way or the other.

May God have mercy on their souls.

[Collin Rugg @CollinRugg]

YouTuber Jesse Ridgway and his wife abort their child after finding out the baby had Down syndrome.

Ridgway cited that they chose to kill the baby after deciding that he and his wife didn't want to be inconvenienced with a child with Down syndrome.

"Things have been pretty dark for a while for us, and we felt this was gonna be a nice little ray of sunshine, and it's not."

Horrific and selfish.

An estimated 67% - 85% of pregnancies in the U.S. with a Down syndrome diagnosis are aborted.

This is evil. Don't let anyone convince you otherwise.

[⛨ Aaronaeus ⛨ @Aaronaeus]

I think you’ve actually illustrated my point better than I could.

You say the councils were “simply men talking.” But how do you know that?

If the Council of Nicaea was just “men talking,” then on what authority do you affirm the Trinity today? The word “Trinity” is not found in Scripture, and the precise language of Nicaea was formulated by those same men you dismiss as merely talking. You should be thanking the Council Fathers because without them Arianism would have won out.

In fact, St. Athanasius made this exact observation while combating the Arians in the 4th century:

“They [the heretics] fall back upon passages of divine Scripture, and here too from want of understanding, according to their wont, they discern not their meaning; but laying down their own irreligion as a sort of canon of interpretation, they wrest the whole of the divine oracles into accordance with it… These passages they brought forward at every turn, mistaking their sense… and thus they deceive the thoughtless, making the language of Scripture their pretense, but instead of the true sense sowing upon it the poison of their own heresy.”

That sounds remarkably similar to the problem we’re discussing. The issue was never whether heretics quoted Scripture. The Arians quoted Scripture constantly. They were the first Sola Scriptura adherents because that’s all they could base their beliefs on. The issue was who had the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.

As for judging by fruits, I agree that fruit matters. But fruit alone cannot settle doctrine.

The Jehovah’s Witness at your door may be kind.

Mormon missionaries going door to door are super kind.

The Arian was probably sincere.

The Nestorians were probably really generous people.

The question is not merely who appears to have good fruit. The question is who teaches the truth.

And that’s exactly why the early Church held councils.

Regarding your point about forbidden spirits and forbidden communications: yes, I agree completely. Scripture warns against certain spiritual communications.

As for the claim that the Bible teaches we should pray to God alone, I would respectfully disagree. The Bible certainly instructs us to pray to God, but it does not explicitly state that prayer must be directed to God alone. That conclusion may be inferred from the text, but it is not stated as an explicit command.

What I do see is Christians commanded to pray for one another, the saints in heaven alive in Christ, aware of earthly events, and presenting prayers before God.

So it seems to me that you’re not deriving your conclusion from an explicit biblical text. You’re inferring it.

And that’s okay. We all make inferences.

The difference is that I’m willing to admit that both of us are interpreting Scripture, which brings us right back to the question of authority and who gets to settle the dispute when Christians disagree.

[⛨ Aaronaeus ⛨ @Aaronaeus]

“Communication with other spirits is forbidden.”

“Forbidden” is a very strong word. As I’ve pointed out repeatedly, none of the passages you’ve cited actually say that all communication with any spirit other than God is forbidden.

Every text you’ve referenced pertains to familiar spirits, mediums, necromancy, divination, seducing spirits, false revelations, or idolatry. Catholics reject all of those practices.

The problem is that you keep placing the saints in heaven into those categories, even though by your own admission they are not.

Respectfully, I don’t know how many times I have to repeat that distinction.

One thing that occurred to me this morning is that our discussion highlights exactly why Catholics reject Sola Scriptura as the sole infallible rule of faith.

You and I are reading the same Bible and arriving at different conclusions. I think you would agree that both conclusions cannot be correct. There is a right interpretation.

The question is: who settles the dispute?

If Scripture alone is sufficient to settle every doctrinal disagreement, why do sincere Christians continue to disagree on baptism, justification, the Eucharist, church government, eternal security, spiritual gifts, divorce and remarriage, and countless other doctrines all while claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit.

The ancient Christian answer is that Christ did not leave us with a book alone. He established a Church and gave her authority to bind and loose in matters of faith and morals (Matt. 16:19, Matt. 18:18). Scripture is inspired and infallible, and Catholics believe Christ also gave His Church a teaching authority that is protected from error in matters of faith and morals. This is not because the Church is above Scripture, but because both derive their authority from Christ and cannot ultimately contradict one another.

I also strongly disagree with your characterization of the Catholic Church as the “great deceiver” or the suggestion that she has somehow “twisted me up.”

When serious doctrinal disputes arose in the early Church, Christians did not simply tell one another to read their Bibles harder. The bishops gathered in council.

The First Council of Nicaea (325 AD) addressed the Arian controversy and affirmed that Jesus Christ is truly God, consubstantial with the Father.

The First Council of Constantinople (381 AD) reaffirmed Nicaea and clarified the full divinity of the Holy Spirit, helping to settle the Church’s doctrine of the Trinity.

The Council of Ephesus (431 AD) condemned Nestorianism and affirmed that Christ is one divine Person, which is why Mary could rightly be called Theotokos, the Mother of God.

The Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) clarified that Jesus Christ is one Person with two natures, fully God and fully man, without confusion or division.

The Second Council of Nicaea (787 AD) also addressed the veneration of saints and holy images, distinguishing the honor given to saints from the worship due to God alone and helping to settle disputes related to the communion of saints. So if I were you I’d read up on that one if I were you.

So when heresies arose, the Church exercised the authority Christ had entrusted to her.

That historical reality is one of the reasons I became Catholic. The early Christians understood that doctrinal disputes required an authoritative Church to settle them, not merely competing private interpretations of Scripture.

[⛨ Aaronaeus ⛨ @Aaronaeus]

Thank you for the prayers. I genuinely appreciate that, and I will pray for you as well.

I think we’ve reached the point where we’ve found the real disagreement.

You believe Scripture teaches that we must communicate with God alone and that this necessarily excludes asking the saints in heaven for their prayers.

I don’t see that taught in Scripture.

I see Scripture teaching that Christ is the one mediator between God and man in the sense that only Christ reconciles us to the Father.

At the same time, I see Scripture commanding Christians to pray for one another, intercede for one another, and bear one another’s burdens. That’s not Christians violating Christ’s mediation, that’s them participating in it.

I see no passage that says those bonds are severed at death.

In fact, I see the opposite. Jesus says God “is not God of the dead, but of the living” (Matt. 22:32). I see the saints in heaven alive, aware, worshiping, and presenting prayers before God in Revelation 5:8.

So while I respect your position, I think you’ve repeatedly asserted a principle that has never actually been demonstrated from the text: that asking a glorified saint to pray for you is forbidden.

At this point, I leave you with the hope you ponder this key question more:

Does death remove a Christian from the communion and mutual intercession that Scripture commands among the members of Christ’s Body?

You have consistently said yes.

I have consistently said no.

And that’s ultimately where our disagreement lies.

Either way, thank you for the charitable discussion. They’re far too rare these days.

[⛨ Aaronaeus ⛨ @Aaronaeus]

The abortion advocate brought up God not the other way around.

The abortion advocate literally said, “Do you believe in God?” So how can you get around that question when he is controlling the conversation?

I agree that pro-life advocacy can be effective without talking about God or making your arguments centered around God, but that’s hard to do when maybe the enemy is bringing up God to maybe make pro-life advocates look bad because they know answering certain questions can make people look crazy.

[⛨ Aaronaeus ⛨ @Aaronaeus]

@XCkyro How anyone take @KellyPowersBPA seriously after @How2BeChristian took him to the woodshed is beyond me.

[⛨ Aaronaeus ⛨ @Aaronaeus]

I believe it

[Pope Respecter @poperespecter1]

Breaking: Former Senator Ben Sasse reveals the real reason for the rise of public schooling:

It was an attempt to destroy Catholic culture in America.

[⛨ Aaronaeus ⛨ @Aaronaeus]

@JoshuaBarzon Did Trump really knock his affiliation down to non-denominational?

[⛨ Aaronaeus ⛨ @Aaronaeus]

That’s actually my point.

You agree that departed souls can communicate with one another.

You agree they are conscious.

You agree they are aware.

You agree they can pray.

You agree they remain saints.

So Luke 16 disproves the idea that death somehow makes communication impossible or that the righteous dead are cut off from all interaction.

Now, I agree Luke 16 does not explicitly say, “Therefore Christians on earth should ask saints in heaven for prayer.”

But it does show that your argument cannot simply be, “They’re dead, therefore they can’t be involved in any communication.”

Because Jesus Himself depicts communication occurring among departed persons.

The question then becomes: where does Scripture teach that a saint in heaven may communicate with another saint in heaven, may be aware of earthly events, may care about people on earth, may pray for people on earth, but may not receive a request for prayer from a fellow member of Christ’s Body?

That’s the missing step.

You keep saying, “They’re spirits.”

I agree.

You keep saying, “They’re dead.”

I agree their earthly bodies are dead.

But none of that establishes the conclusion that asking for their intercession is forbidden.

That conclusion still requires a text, and I haven’t seen one yet.