Linus

📚

[Linus @lundensian]

Most online and street apologetics between Christians and Muslims are horrendous because neither side usually knows their own religion, nor that of the other. Moreover, it is void of the fruits of the Spirit.

[Canon & Creed @Canonandcreed]

Chrysostom on Galatians 3:13 and Christ satisfying the demands of the law:

“For the people were liable to punishment since they had not fulfilled the whole law. Christ satisfied a different curse: the one that says "Cursed is everyone that hangs on a tree" Both the one who is hanged and the one who transgresses the law are accursed. Christ, who was going to lift that curse, could not properly be made liable to it yet had to receive a curse. He received the curse instead of being liable to it and through this lifted the curse. Just as, when someone is condemned to death, another innocent person who chooses to die for him releases him from that punishment, so Christ also did.... Just as by dying he snatched from death those who were going to die, so also when he suffered the curse he released them from the curse.”—John Chrysostom; Ancient Christian Commentary NT VIII (IVP Academic; 2005), pg. 40

[Linus @lundensian]

@Toneskeee Obviously, everyone would like to claim that to be true of their own theology. It rarely, if ever, is that simple.

[Wes Huff @WesleyLHuff]

What on earth is Paul talking about when, in 1 Tim. 2:15, he says: “Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.” Let’s tackle a tricky passage together!

Paul’s statement about women being “saved through childbirth” is walked through in a few different ways, and the ambiguity stems from whether he refers to a specific childbirth or childbearing in general.

Some of the first in-depth analysis comes in the 4th century. Gregory of Nyssa understood the text literally, interpreting it as referring to the salvation of mothers who bear spiritually regenerated children. Whereas Theodore of Mopsuestia, extended this to all women saved through childbearing. Ambrosiaster qualified this by specifying that salvation applies only when children are “reborn in Christ.” Augustine, however, departed from this literal reading, arguing that Paul’s teaching should be understood “figuratively and mystically.”

Contemporary scholarship divides into two primary camps:

1) identifying “the woman” as Eve and “the childbirth” as the birth of the Messiah, reading “τῆς τεκνογονίας” as a reference to a specific childbirth rather than childbearing in general. The verses prior do say: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor” (2:13-14). Under this messianic reading, even transgression of God’s ordained male/female roles can be redeemed through Christ’s birth, an event contrasted with Adam’s sin, where one brought death and the other brought life.

2) focuses on literal childbearing. Tom Schreiner argues that “saved through childbirth” refers to women being preserved physically when they give birth, since childbirth was a major concern for women in the first century, whereas spiritual salvation doesn’t appear to address the specific concerns of 1–2 Timothy (see Schreiner’s “Paul and Gender”). Under this view, childbirth becomes a metaphor for dangers in a fallen world, and the promise of protection functions similarly to other biblical assurances that don’t guarantee literal preservation.

A third option interprets childbearing as representative of women’s acceptance of their proper role in family and church, signaling their rejection of false teaching and return to traditional domestic values (this is argued in Douglas Mangum and E. Tod Twist’s Logos Research commentary).

The passage’s meaning ultimately depends on which interpretive framework best accounts for Paul’s theological purpose in 1 Timothy. What are your thoughts?

[The Michael Knowles Show @MKnowlesShow]

Pope Leo just dropped a major encyclical on AI.

@michaeljknowles breaks down what the encyclical is, and what it isn’t:

[Wes Huff @WesleyLHuff]

Seeing some response to my statement on @MikhailaFuller's podcast about speaking in tongues. Some potentially helpful clarification:

First, I am not a cessationist (though I see myself being accused of it). I state in the interview that I believe that the spiritual sign gifts (tongues, prophesy, healing) still take place today, just not normatively like they were in the Apostolic era.

Nonetheless, I hold to the standard exegetical position that biblical tongues refer to known languages. In Acts 2, the foundational instance, foreign speakers understood the disciples in their own native languages, establishing the clearest precedent for interpreting the phenomenon throughout Scripture.

Secondly, while bliblical specialists and theologians debate whether tongues encompass human languages alone or include angelic speech, the consensus recognizes that a tongue functions as a language -- either immediately intelligible to hearers or requiring interpretation. The requirement that Paul places on interpretation in 1 Corinthians 14 indicates that tongues contain objective, propositional meaning subject to translation, and his statement that “every valid instance of tongues contains intrinsic, propositional meaning" reinforces this understanding.

A prominent scholarly argument identifies glossolalia as “the miraculous ability to speak unlearned human and (possibly) divine or angelic languages,” with the most common usage of “tongues” referring to ordinary human languages. The term γλῶσσα throughout the NT carries two primary meanings: the human organ or a human language, and careful word studies demonstrate that it never denotes non-cognitive utterance.

However, scholarly consensus isn’t absolute the core agreement across interpretations centers on cognitive content: tongues communicate meaningful, intelligible information rather than incoherent utterance.

Third, the early church evidence after the Apostolic era is virtually unanimous: the Early Church Fathers consistently interpreted the gift of tongues as the capacity to speak the many languages used across the earth. Their writings indicate the gift served an evangelistic purpose enabling communication with non-Christian populations.

The Patristics universally understood “tongues” in Acts and 1 Corinthians to refer to human languages, and ancient Christians understood the biblical gift of tongues as a miracle involving intelligible human languages. When the fathers described the phenomenon, they used concrete language: John Chrysostom wrote that believers “would suddenly speak in Persian, another in Latin, another in the language of the Indians or of some other people” (Homilies on First Corinthians, Homily 35), and Augustine stated that disciples “spoke in the languages of all the nations” (Sermon 269, Sermo CCLXIX.

The most significant, and almost exclusive, early figure associated with ecstatic speech for tongues was Montanus, a 2nd-century prophet whose followers emphasized speaking in tongues; he was actually excommunicated (not necessarily for his position on tongues) around AD 177. By the late 2nd century, ecstatic interpretations of tongues were present but only in context of ecclesiastical concern.

One interesting nuance appears with Philastrius in the 4th century, who understood angels as capable of conversing in all languages and believed the apostles received this same ability at Pentecost. However, this doesn’t represent a departure from the “knowable language” framework rather, the Early Church Fathers understood the gift of tongues as the ability to speak all languages spoken by people. The Church Fathers agreed the gift was the ability to speak all languages known to humankind, an ability they ascribed to angels, suggesting the “languages of angels” would not refer to a distinct heavenly language but rather to the capacity to communicate with anyone encountered.

The historical record shows no discussion among the fathers of ecstatic utterances, unknown languages, or supernatural unintelligible speech. The gift remained firmly anchored to practical, learnable human languages throughout Patristic interpretation.

So if you've stuck around this long, I think my position is both exegetically and historically sound.

[Linus @lundensian]

@johnpauldickson While I disagree, I do think you make a valuable epistemological point: far too often, we falsely believe that probabilistic knowledge conveys certainty.

[Linus @lundensian]

@HardlyWery It goes far beyond the Trinity. It's comparable to Islam. Claims to Jesus, new revelation, new book, new doctrines. I can appreciate that LDS are misunderstood by many Christians, in the same way Muslims are.

[Linus @lundensian]

William Lane Craig is one of the most influential Christian apologists of his generation, and essentially all of his arguments were borrowed from Islamic theology.

[Linus @lundensian]

@Skidrow511 @trad_west_ His brother, Jermaine, is a Muslim and has stated publicly that he tried to convince Michael to become Muslim without success. So, no, as far as what is publicly available, Michael did not convert to Islam.

[Linus @lundensian]

Unlike in Europe, American Christianity has always largely been personality based.

[Linus @lundensian]

As much as we love our theological bubbles, the reality is that a global bird's-eye view of Christianity can largely be summarized as:

Protestantism = Evangelical, largely charismatic, free-form church.
Roman Catholicism = institutionalized, ritualistic, traditional church.

[The Culturist @the_culturist_]

A culture that believes in eternity builds things differently.

[Linus @lundensian]

@metathomist It was indecent then, it is indecent now.
Our society is so desensitized to sin – especially sexual sin – that even most Christians are blind.

[Atlas Press @realAtlasPress]

The purpose of art was once not to shock or transgress, but to elevate the soul.

[Archaeo - Histories @archeohistories]

The Saint Catherine Greek Orthodox Monastery at Mount Sinai in Egypt 🇪🇬 is indeed a remarkable and historic institution, holding an extraordinary record in both religious and cultural heritage. Established by Emperor Justinian I in 6th Century, (around 548 CE), the monastery has operated almost continuously for 1500 years, making it one of the oldest functioning monasteries in the world.

Since its founding by Emperor Justinian, the monastery has remained a center of Christian monasticism and worship. Its location at the foot of Mount Sinai, where Moses is said to have received the Ten Commandments, adds to its spiritual and historical importance. The monastery has survived various challenges over the centuries, including invasions, political changes, and conflicts in the region, maintaining its role as a place of devotion and learning.

The monastery houses one of the oldest and most significant libraries in the world, with a collection of ancient Christian manuscripts and texts that are invaluable to scholars. Its library contains thousands of rare texts, many of which are written in Greek, Syriac, and other early Christian languages. Among its treasures is the Codex Sinaiticus, one of oldest known manuscripts of the Christian Bible, dating back to 4th Century CE. This makes the monastery's library not only one of the oldest but also one of the most important for understanding early Christian theology and scripture.

The monastery holds a remarkable collection of early Christian icons and religious art, which are some of the oldest surviving examples of Christian iconography. These icons, some dating back to 6th Century, are of immense artistic and theological value, providing insight into the development of Christian visual culture during the Byzantine period. The monastery's art reflects the fusion of Byzantine traditions with local influences from Egypt and the broader Middle East.

Saint Catherine's Monastery is not only a living place of worship but also a UNESCO World Heritage site, recognized for its cultural and historical importance. Its significance as a pilgrimage site, particularly for those of the Eastern Orthodox faith, is profound. The monastery has been a symbol of Christian endurance in a region that has seen many shifts in power and religion over the centuries.

The monastery itself is an architectural marvel, with its well-preserved buildings, walls, and fortifications. It is one of the best-preserved examples of early Byzantine monastic architecture. The chapel of the burning bush (where Moses is said to have encountered God) is a key feature of the monastery and draws pilgrims from all over the world.

#archaeohistories

[Trad West @trad_west_]

Here is a thread showcasing the beauty we lost to "progress" 🧵✝️

[Linus @lundensian]

It is my firm belief that both Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox generally misunderstand what the Reformers meant by justification by faith alone.

[Linus @lundensian]

@nickycantaloupe @TheDonStein @LutheranAnswers Petrus Magni was consecrated as bishop in Rome under papal authority prior to the Reformation. He, in turn, consecrated Laurentius Petri in 1531, thereby maintaining the episcopal line in the Church of Sweden.

[Canon & Creed @Canonandcreed]

Protestants believe in both imputation and infusion.

Francis Turretin (Reformed):

“For whatever the opponents may calumniously charge upon the orthodox (to wit, that ‘we allow of no inherent righteousness’), it is surely a most foul calumny. Its falsity is proved from the writings of our divines whether public or private, in which everywhere and with common consent they teach that the benefits of justification and sanctification are so indissolubly connected with each other that God justifies no one without equally sanctifying him and giving inherent righteousness by the creating of a new man in true righteousness and holiness. But the question is whether that inherent righteousness (such as exists in believers on earth) enters into our justification, either as its cause or as a part, so that it constitutes some part of our justification and is the meritorious cause and foundation of our absolving sentence in the judgment of God.”—Francis Turretin; Institutes of Elenctic Theology (P&R Publishing), Vol. 2, pg. 638

David Hollatz (Lutheran):

“For Christ not only ascribes and imparts to us His own righteousness, but also endows us with inherent righteousness; we, however, do not infect him with the contagion of our inherent unrighteousness. Whence our sin does not inhere in him.”—David Hollaz; Examen Theologicum Acroamaticum (Scholastic Lutherans; 2025), pg. 850