Jo Dero⚜️

✝️⚜️Christian, Canadien, Give me Liberty or give me death, Traveler, Man at Arms, History, Law and Theology.

[Jo Dero⚜️ @Deroe24]

But synergism affirm, in effect, that the grace of God is not enough, as if God merely completed what we begin, or as if He began what He could not finish, or as if He would willfully begin and then leave the finishing to us.

As though there were in man some native goodness after original sin, or strength capable of willing and completing the work of God, or as though man could add to God’s work, or comprehend and assent to His truth while yet unregenerate and under the curse of Adam.

God is holy, perfect, and all-sufficient; His work is pure and without blemish. Man, by contrast, is corrupt and powerless: “by nature children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3), “dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1), “ungodly” (Romans 5:6), and “unable to please God” (Romans 8:8). “There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks after God” (Romans 3:10–11). How then could that which is unclean add to that which is holy? To suppose that man could contribute to the work of God is to profane what is sacred.

Therefore, God does not complete our faith by adding grace to our effort; nor can we add to His work without corrupting it. As the Lord said to Moses, “You shall not build My altar of hewn stones; for if you wield your tool on it you profane it” (Exodus 20:25). So the work of salvation must remain wholly of God, untouched by human hands.

Men neither initiate nor complete anything, for “it is God who works in you both to will and to work for His good pleasure” (Philippians 2:13). The life-giving Spirit quickens the dead, and they live; for “it is the Spirit who gives life” (John 6:63), and “even when we were dead in trespasses, God made us alive together with Christ” (Ephesians 2:5).

God does not supplement our efforts as though anything good could arise from us deserving His completion. Rather, He Himself produces in us both the good will and the good work entirely by grace. Every motion toward faith and righteousness is His work, not ours.

Synergism is therefore a form of Pelagianism, dividing the merit of salvation between God and man.

“Not to us, O LORD, not to us, but to Your name give glory” (Psalm 115:1)

God alone saves. Salvation is entirely His work, from beginning to end. Faith, repentance, obedience, and every good action are produced in us by His grace; we contribute nothing of our own merit. Man, dead in sin and under the curse of original sin, is incapable of initiating or completing the work of salvation.

“Faith then, as well in its beginning as in its completion, is the gift of God; and let no one have any doubt whatever, but that this is the doctrine of the apostolic teaching.”
- Augustine, On the Predestination of the Saints, ch. 16

[Jo Dero⚜️ @Deroe24]

It already exists; it is called the invisible Church.

It is catholic, universal, and it is ortbodox, preserving the true dogma, and it is also reforming daily, being transformed to conformity with its Head, the Christ.

It has already won.

It will overtake the whole world, it is inexorable, because it will not be done by the hand of man but by God who has decreed it. It will happen.

One day, every knees will bow down before the Lord Jesus Christ and confess He alone is Lord, willingly or not.

[Jo Dero⚜️ @Deroe24]

I agree with that.

There is only one apostolic and catholic Church which is the bride of Christ.

It is made of all men, who “in every places, “pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling”, “calling upon the name of Jesus”.

There has been many disagreements in the Church, but as far as i am concerned, it is not written: all who adhere to the magisterium or the confession of Westminster will be saved, but “all those who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.”

The Church of Christ is not limited to the visible Church, but it is made of all those who believe from the heart in Jesus Christ and produces fruits of repentance even if throughout history, they may have appeared divided.

[Jo Dero⚜️ @Deroe24]

The contradiction between popes and councils, and the doctrinal evolution and additions of traditions and dogmas unsubstantiated by the apostolic witness (their epistles and those of the fathers) between the 4th and the 16th century, as well as since the 16th century are proofs in themselves that the clergy and councils have often been led by geopolitics and concerns for cultural relevance rather than by the Holy Spirit and desire for doctrinal purity.

Christ will judge them himself.

As for us, we must be faithful to the doctrine received from the prophets and apostles and remain faithful to God rather than doctrines and traditions elaborated later by men.

Not that traditions or dogmas explaining the sound doctrine are to be automatically rejected, as many have been good for the Church (such as the Trinity, the Credo, …), but when they clearly contradicts the witness of the apostles (the epistles, Gospels, the witness of the apostolic fathers…), we must reject them, even if declared by angels or by popes.

[Jo Dero⚜️ @Deroe24]

Comme quoi même un fou lorsqu’il ne parle pas peut passer pour un sage.

Ce texte n’est qu’un torchon insipide et sans structure écrit par une ménagère de bas étage.

Cela ne sert à rien de s’y attarder. Les plus grands perdants dans cette article sont l’auteure qui étale sa folie (ainsi que son piêtre vocabulaire), et les éditeurs du Devoir, journal jadis destiné aux gens sérieux dont la crédibilité en prend un coup.

[Jo Dero⚜️ @Deroe24]

The Apostles at the council of Jerusalem recognized the guidance of the Spirit based on direct revelation from Christ and his angels rather than adding dogmas based on traditions that arose later.

The binding on earth does not refer to the addition of doctrines different than the one received as Paul himself wrote to the Galatians, but to the authority granted to the apostles specifically in matters of discipline, and to the miracles that accompanied their teaching.

This promise of Christ is also addressed specifically to the Apostles who are the foundation of the Church.

When Peter pronounced judgement on Ananias and Saphira or Paul on the Elymas, they perished or were blinded instantly.

No other popes or councils, or bishops or teacher ever did such things or held such authority.

Rather, their authority depends on their faithfulness to the apostolic teachings.

[Jo Dero⚜️ @Deroe24]

Yes, Mary is a type of Eve. (and so is the Church)

Eve sinned.

Mary, not being conceived by virtue of a the Spirit but of a man was also under the curse of original sin, as a daughter of Adam.

However, she is saved by bearing the Son who crushes the serpent’s head.

If she was conceived immaculate, she would need no savior, but she is saved by conceiving.

As Eve disobeyed and was an occasion of fall for Adam, so did Mary obeyed, was redeemed by the Son of God she bore and nurtured, and became a blessing to the Church.

It is not to say that she did not live a virtuous life (to the contrary), but that she also was redeemed by Christ.

[Jo Dero⚜️ @Deroe24]

@calvinrobinson I hope they do not see Christ as simply a trendy nationalist statement but actually repent of their sin and believe the gospel with their heart unto salvation.

[Jo Dero⚜️ @Deroe24]

The Church apostolic authority is only valid as long as it remains faithful to the apostolic doctrine.

“But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.”

“As we have said before, so now I say again: if anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.”

Saint Paul, Galatians 1:8–9

Popes and councils have contradicted themselves many time.

Ultimately, the foundation of the faith is not popes and councils, but prophets and apostles:

“So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,
built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.”

Saint Paul, Ephesians 2:19–20

[Jo Dero⚜️ @Deroe24]

@MJO118 @annie_olss17596 @Truth_matters20 @deusimpera Letter of St Bernard de Clairvaux to the Canons of Lyon regarding the conception of Mary, AD 1140.

https://t.co/h5UlPoD2V0

[Jo Dero⚜️ @Deroe24]

No Church fathers believed in the immaculate conception of Mary, and some specifically affirmed she was also subjected to original sin.

Aquinas did not believe that she was conceived immaculate.

Bernard de Clairvaux in the 12th century wrote that for a conception to be immaculate, a man cannot be involved, but that it must be a conception by virtue of the Holy Spirit. He therefore rejected this novel tradition and affirmed that only the conception of Christ was immaculate.

Mary cannot have been conceived without sin as she is not conceived by the Holy Spirit but have a biological father and mother. Only the conception of Christ can be immaculate.

Aquinas believed that Mary was sanctified before birth but not at conception.

The dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary was only adopted by Rome in 1854.

[Jo Dero⚜️ @Deroe24]

“If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin, this would be derogatory to the dignity of Christ, by reason of His being the universal Saviour of all. Consequently after Christ, who, as the universal Saviour of all, needed not to be saved, the purity of the Blessed Virgin holds the highest place. For Christ did not contract original sin in any way whatever, but was holy in His very Conception, according to Luke 1:35: "The Holy which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God." But the Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her birth from the womb. This is what is signified (Job 3:9) where it is written of the night of original sin: "Let it expect light," i.e. Christ, "and not see it"—(because "no defiled thing cometh into her," as is written in Wisdom 7:25), "nor the rising of the dawning of the day," that is of the Blessed Virgin, who in her birth was immune from original sin.”

Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, III, question 27

https://t.co/0a7bgBb71D

[Jo Dero⚜️ @Deroe24]

Yes, that is essentially what I wrote:

The debate was christological, and not about the nature of Mary. And the adoption of the expression God bearer rather than Christ bearer and the acceptance of the title “Mother of God” is not aimed at Mary as being the source of divinity, but at the divine nature of Christ himself.

Some protestants have issues with the title and not with the implication of the title. This is why their opposition might often sound like Nestorius and this is mostly out of ignorance rather.

Luther and Zwingli themselves both affirmed the title “Mother of God”, while rejecting the late devotional innovations surrounding Mary (co-mediatrix, co-redemptrix, immaculate conception of Mary, intercession…).

[Jo Dero⚜️ @Deroe24]

The council of Ephesus was not about the nature of Mary but about the nature of Christ.

The Theotokos was adopted to oppose Nestorius and defend the hypostatic union. It is emphasizing the undivided humanity and divinity of Christ, a fundamental tenet of the christian doctrine of salvation.

This commentary on the gospel of Luke and the council of Ephesus is simply historically inaccurate.

[Jo Dero⚜️ @Deroe24]

To clarify the above: The reformers maintained belief in the hypostatic union while diverging on the appropriateness of using the title “God bearer”, or “Mother of God”.

Luther and Zwingli affirmed the Theotokos without the Marian cult, while Calvin warned against using such title he deemed idolatrous.

[Jo Dero⚜️ @Deroe24]

The title “Mother of God” was affirmed by the Church at the Council of Ephesus, not to exalt Mary, but to safeguard the divinity of Christ. It arose from the debates concerning His nature, which led to the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union: that Jesus Christ is one Person, fully God and fully man.

All the Reformers accepted the factual truth of this title, while warning against the danger of turning the Mother of God into an idol, ascribing to her the glory due to God alone.

Some modern evangelical expressions, particularly regarding the conception of Christ, resemble Nestorian error in that they seem to separate Christ’s humanity from His divinity. Yet this arises from ignorance of the logical implications, not from a denial of His divine nature.

The Reformers, following the judgment of the Church, taught prudently: Mary is not the origin of Christ’s divinity, yet she bore the Son of God, the only God, Jesus Christ, who alone with the Father is worthy of worship and glory.

[Jo Dero⚜️ @Deroe24]

There is one Holy, Apostolic, and Catholic Church, undivided, whose Head is Jesus Christ.

She is the body of those chosen from eternity, whose names were written in the Book of Life, who will persevere until the end, and who will be raised on the last day to glory with Jesus Christ.

She is catholic, that is, universal; not subjected to nations or kings or any men, but to the King of kings alone. She will overcome the world and rule along Christ over all potentates and nations.

She is orthodox; she holds the true apostolic faith, and will not be led into falsehood, as she knows the voice of her Shepherd and He knows her. She is the pillar and bulwark of truth by virtue of Her Head who will preserve her until the end.

She is continually reformed and sanctified, being conformed ever more to her Head until His coming.

The Church is the mother of all true believers in Christ. We are right to say that there is no salvation outside the Church, as those appointed to salvation are indeed joined to her.

Although in her visible form she appears pitiful, divided, and in disarray, in her invisible form she is glorious, beautiful, spotless, and victorious, because of Him who called her, who sanctifies her, and who will glorify her on the last day.

She is called Zion, the holy mountain of God that will fill the whole earth, and the Israel of God. Her city is the Jerusalem above, being sanctified and prepared for the marriage supper of the Lord. Her inhabitants are the chosen of the Lord.

Her sons and daughters are many. They are those whose garments are being washed white, who will inherit eternal life with God: They are the saints and the martyrs.

As for the false church, she is a reprobate harlot. She is the tares sown among the wheat. She has the appearance of godliness, but denies the power that gives it strength. She has abandoned the Gospel for the traditions of men, and appointed false teachers to tell things pleasant to her itching ears.

Her inheritance is utter destruction and eternal shame; the overwhelming fullness of the inescapable wrath of God, together with the godless, the rebels, and the unbelievers.

[Jo Dero⚜️ @Deroe24]

The Catholicity of the Church does not refer to the claims of the Roman see but to the cosmic and united character of the Kingdom of Heaven, and to the fact that it is not subjected to any potentates but Christ and will overcome and rule over all nations and authority on earth with Christ its head.

[Jo Dero⚜️ @Deroe24]

The Church’s understanding at the time of the council of Nicaea was that no single bishop (also called popes in the western part of the Empire), including the bishop of Rome, was meant to exercise absolute earthly authority over the whole Church.

Historical records do not lie :

In a letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople written in 595, Pope Gregory the Great explicitly referred to anyone claiming supremacy over other bishops as a precursor of the Antichrist.
(Gregory I, Epistle 18, addressed to John of Constantinople, January 595 AD)

It is from the 6th century (Pope Boniface III, even Gregory the Great in matter of Church discipline) that the idea of Rome’s universal jurisdiction began to be accentuated, eventually contributing to the East–West Schism. Prior to this, the early Roman bishops were held in respect and seen as first among peers, not for claims of overarching authority, but for their connection to the apostles Peter and Paul, the perseverance of the Roman congregation during particularly harsh persecutions, and the faith of their local Church. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, c. 180 AD)

The respect accorded to the Roman popes was honorific, rather than sovereign over all other churches.

The bishops of Britannia did not see themselves as subject to the authority of Rome, but they agreed to harmonize certain practices with Roman custom when the same pope sent an envoy to reopen dialogue in 597 and in 664 (Synod of Whitby). This reflects a position of cooperation with the rest of the Church rather than submission, demonstrating that early British bishops recognized Rome in honor and guidance but maintained local autonomy.

Historically, ecumenical councils exercised authority in the Church, because they often preserved apostolic doctrine (they also added and contradicted themselves at times and so their authority cannot be absolute).

The emergence of papal supremacy later centralized authority in the bishop of Rome, but prior to this development, the Church’s doctrinal and disciplinary decisions were determined collectively in accordance with apostolic doctrine, the understanding of bishops, and a reliance on the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

In the Orthodox Church, councils continue to retain this authoritative role. In the Reformed tradition, however, authority rests solely on the apostolic doctrine, as recorded in the writings of the apostles and interpreted faithfully according to the intended meaning of the original authors, relying as well on the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

In the Reformed Church, doctrinal succession is given priority over an unbroken transmission of episcopal see, emphasizing orthodoxy over the continuity of office.

The Catholicity of the Church does not refer to the claims of the Roman see but to the cosmic and united character of the Kingdom of Heaven, and to the fact that it is not subjected to any potentates but Christ and will overcome and rule over all nations and authority on earth with Christ its head.

[Jo Dero⚜️ @Deroe24]

@nationalpost Another attack on meat eaters and cattle ranchers.

[Jo Dero⚜️ @Deroe24]

Furthermore, she does not mention the millions of European enslaved ether by Romans, or Danes, or by muslims slavers, or those reduced to servitude and sent by the British in America or Australia.

Whole villages in Spain, France, Italy, even Ireland were raided, reduced to slavery and sold as slave between Alger and Constantinople.

Virginia received thousands of Irish slaves after the defeat of the covenantal army in Ireland.

About 388 000 slaves were sent to the USA. They became numerous in North America because of natural growth and better life conditions than in the caribbean and Spanish colonies.

Nearly 2 millions Europeans were captured by North African raiders.

The bulk of africans slaves went to Brasil and the Carribean yet we never hear the champions of oppressions direct their angers at Brasil or Portugal.

The truth is that African empires destroyed their ancestors’ way of life and sold them into slavery. Yet those same empires were crushed by those who fought the practice of slavery globally: British, French, and Americans.