DatPolySciGuy

Christian | Ritus Romanus | Liberty promoter | Self Preservation is a Human Right | Private Spaceflight

[DatPolySciGuy @DatPolySciGuy]

@AL_J82 Augustine explicitly includes the Deuterocanonical books in his canon list in On Christian Doctrine 2.8.13.
His list had Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccab, 2 Maccab, Wisdom, and Sirach.
Augustine supported the canon of the Councils of Hippo and Carthage
which also included the Deuterocanon

[DatPolySciGuy @DatPolySciGuy]

@rickbrennanjr Justin no more needed the word "transubstantiation" than the Apostles needed the word "Trinity." The question isn't whether he used later terminology, it's whether he believed the reality that the terminology was later developed to explain. Justin says its His flesh and blood.

[DatPolySciGuy @DatPolySciGuy]

@LizzieMarbach What is “the gospel” and by what authority is it defined? Protestants disagree on baptismal regeneration, eternal security, justification, repentance, the Eucharist. Issues many Christians would consider tied to salvation itself. The question is who gets to define the essentials.

[DatPolySciGuy @DatPolySciGuy]

@markalancraig @rickbrennanjr Every ancient Christian communion across all regions held to infant baptism. If believer's baptism was the universal apostolic practice, when did the universal Church abandon it, and why do we have no record of the controversy that such a massive change would have caused?

[DatPolySciGuy @DatPolySciGuy]

@rickbrennanjr The historical burden is therefore not on the paedobaptist to explain why infant baptism exists, but on the credobaptist to explain when the universal Church abandoned the allegedly apostolic practice of believer-only baptism.

[DatPolySciGuy @DatPolySciGuy]

@rickbrennanjr Every early witness you cited believes baptism regenerates. The dispute among them is not whether baptism saves but when it should be administered. By the 3rd century infant baptism is treated as normal, attributed to apostolic tradition, and appears in every apostolic communion.

[DatPolySciGuy @DatPolySciGuy]

@needGod_net The issue isn’t whether the Fathers ever disagreed. It’s what they consistently held across regions. On baptismal regeneration, the real presence, apostolic succession, and a visible Church, they’re remarkably unified. That consensus isn’t preserved in Protestant theology.

[DatPolySciGuy @DatPolySciGuy]

@EvidenceOfFaith 1 Cor 1 isn't about denominations. Paul didn't tell the Corinthians, "It's okay, you're all part of the invisible church." He told them to stop dividing because Christ is not divided. They were still one church under apostolic authority, sharing the same sacraments and communion.

[DatPolySciGuy @DatPolySciGuy]

@NMarbletoe @adelethelaptop @23wjohnston In Scripture, love for God is repeatedly expressed through sacrifice, covenant meals, prayer, priestly service, and obedience.

The greatest commandment tells us why we worship. It doesn't tell us that worship is therefore reduced to an inward feeling.

[DatPolySciGuy @DatPolySciGuy]

@adelethelaptop @23wjohnston Worship isn't merely feelings. If true worship is primarily an inward disposition, why does Scripture consistently describe worship through objective acts of offering, sacrifice, covenant meals, altars, and priestly service rather than simply through religious feelings?

[DatPolySciGuy @DatPolySciGuy]

@DavidReinker @logos_asarkos To call upon the name of the Lord is a Hebrew idiom for liturgical worship/sacrifice-Gen 12:8;13:4. Baptism/the Eucharist are the new liturgical worship. Acts 22:16 explicitly ties baptism to “calling on His name.” Heb 13:10/1 Cor 10:14-21 tie the Eucharist to the Christian altar

[DatPolySciGuy @DatPolySciGuy]

@EddieJamro84189 @JimSanoBC79 You're repeating the crowd from John 6, yet Christ's response to them was to eat his flesh/drink his blood or you have no life. Calling it "cannibalism" assumes Catholics believe we're chewing pieces of mortal human tissue. We don't. We receive the glorified Christ sacramentally.

[DatPolySciGuy @DatPolySciGuy]

@j_zhong1611 Ah yes, one of the Protestant 5 Solas:

Justification by faith in my interpretation of scripture alone.

[DatPolySciGuy @DatPolySciGuy]

@ChristandGuitar Which early Church? The same Church that preserved Scripture also taught apostolic succession, Eucharistic realism, baptismal regeneration, episcopal authority, and visible unity. If the early Church got all of that wrong, then what makes you so sure they got the bible right?

[DatPolySciGuy @DatPolySciGuy]

@LaymansSeminary The problem is that "preserves the apostolic gospel" assumes you can identify the apostolic gospel apart from the apostolic Church. Historically, where was that church before the Reformation? Which bishops, which succession, which liturgy, which communion preserved it?

[DatPolySciGuy @DatPolySciGuy]

@rickbrennanjr St. Augustine of Hippo rejects sola fide, so I find it odd that you would try to use him to argue for it.

"That faith which the Apostle Paul distinguishes from the faith of devils is not faith alone, but faith that works through love."

(Faith and Works, 21.38)

[DatPolySciGuy @DatPolySciGuy]

@PartesanJournal @HabitualLinest In Ezekiel, a cross-shaped symbol represented divine protection and covenant union with God. Revelation 7:3, the servants of God wear it on their foreheads. We see it in early Christian writings. Tertullian wrote, "We Christians wear out our foreheads with the sign of the cross."

[DatPolySciGuy @DatPolySciGuy]

@Truth_matters20 In Ezekiel, a cross-shaped symbol represented divine protection and covenant union with God. Revelation 7:3, the servants of God wear it on their foreheads. We see it in early Christian writings. Tertullian wrote, "We Christians wear out our foreheads with the sign of the cross."