Dudes be like: Calvinism not teaching real presence in the exact same way I do means they're gnostics because they deny you physically chew on Jesus' earlobe in the eucharist and that's denying the actual body of Christ!
it's also funny how Cernovich later was like "bro, read the church fathers."
DUDE, YOU CLEARLY HAVENT READ THEM IF YOU'RE A GNOSTIC, IGNATIUS AND IRENAEUS WOULD SLAP YOU IF THEY HEARD WHAT YOU SAID
oh and just to add, yes the Reformed tradition does teach real presence in the Lord's Supper. Many call this "spiritual" real presence not because only our spirits participate or because we divide Jesus and receive his soul and not his physical body, but rather because the
emphasis is placed on the Holy Spirit's work in communicating the true body and blood of Christ to us through means of participation in the supper. Our Triune emphasis on the supper is not by any means gnostic
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
when evaluating a tradition's claim to being the 'One True Church,' Augustine set up some good guidelines in his dispute with the Donatists:
"All such things then removed, let them [the Donatists] demonstrate their Church, if they can, not in the speeches and murmurs of African
, not in the councils of their bishops, not in the epistles of whatever debates, not in false signs and prodigies, since we are prepared and cautioned against them by the word of the Lord, but in the precept of the law, in the predictions of the prophets, in the songs of the
psalms, in the utterances of the one shepherd himself, in the preaching of the evangelists, that is in all the canonical authority of the holy books, and not such that they might gather and cite things that are spoken obscurely or ambiguously or metaphorically which anyone might
>be me, a 7th grader who's obsessed with Ken Ham & is an avid YEC
>read John Walton in high school & default to accepting all mainstream science as not conflicting with my faith
>further study the ideological nature of most modern "science"
>read some more
back to YEC I guess
once you suspend a lot of your post-enlightenment rationalism and realize that the laws of nature are simply the normative way in which God supernaturally upholds the universe and he can suspend this literally whenever he wants, YECism doesn't sound that crazy.
and in regard to ppl like John Walton, what they do is simply take a small fragment of truth and expand it to make it seem like it is the bigger picture than everything else and all else is therefore wrong.
I'll give an example in regard to the flood account.
“We know that wherever there is a divine promise, there faith is required, and that these two are so necessary to each other that neither can be effective apart from the other. For it is not possible to believe unless there is a promise, and the promise is not established
unless it is believed. But where these two meet, they give a real and most certain efficacy to the sacraments. Hence, to seek the efficacy of the sacrament apart from the promise and apart from the faith is to labor in vain and to find condemnation. Thus Christ says: ‘He who
believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned’ (Mark 16:16). He shows us in this word that faith is such a necessary part of the sacrament that it can save even without the sacrament, and for this reason he did not add: ‘He who does not
really insightful quote from Martin Luther on faith & baptism:
“The difference, then, between the legal symbols [Old Covenant vestments, vessels, foods, houses, etc.] and the new and old signs [sacraments] is that the legal symbols do not have attached to them any word of promise
requiring faith. Hence they are not signs of justification, for they are not sacraments of the faith that alone justifies, but only sacraments of works. Their whole power and nature consisted in works, not in faith. Whoever performed then fulfilled them, even if he did it
without faith. But our signs or sacraments, as well as those of the fathers, have attached to them a word of promise which requires faith, and they cannot be fulfilled by any other work. Hence they are signs or sacraments of justification, for they are sacraments of
gonna make an anti-burger account called “Cursed Burger Nonsense” where all I post are soggy microwave burgers that aren’t made out of real beef to show how bad burgers are. I will intentionally leave out thick juicy real-beef burgers made on the grill on a beautiful sunny day.
if anyone says to me “you’re not showing real burgers! Those are microwaved frozen food burgers that aren’t even made from real meat!” I’ll simply respond by saying that the existence of burgers in the first place gave way to this type of thing, so you can’t make excuses tbh.
I’ll find a disgusting microwavable veggie burger & attribute it to Gordon Ramsay. It will be fantastic. I’ll ignore any historical development that led to the creation of soggy microwavable “burgers” & simply point to this as stemming from the existence of burgers themselves.