Anglo-Catholicism vs Reformed Anglicanism - A Dialogue

I moderate a dialogue between two Anglican clergymen from two major strands of Anglicanism: Fr. James (Anglo-Catholicism) aka Barely Protestant, and Rev. David Ould (Reformed Anglicanism). We will proceed through a number of major topics, such as the nature of the sacraments, the canon of Holy Scripture, church authority, and much more. Both men will give their own take on these topics from their respective traditions and personal stances, and then engage in a back and forth.
This dialogue will give a solid introduction to the major strands of historic Anglicanism. More critically, it will also serve as an excellent display of substantive dialogue between two movements with significant disagreements, and how we can still mutually affirm brotherhood in Christ despite such differences.
Fr. James' channel (Barely Protestant): / @barelyprotestant5365
Rev. David Ould's blog: davidould.net
~~~
Follow me on Gab: gab.com/Paulos
Join the official Discord server (The Theocrat Lounge): / discord
Become a financial supporter: www.subscribes...
Follow my social media & consider supporting my ministry in other ways. All links are here: linktr.ee/The_...
Intro music:
"Desert City"
Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
creativecommon...

[@danielhixon8209]

I love these guys; your Wesleyan brother always enjoys watching you all

[@kerygmacatolicoevangelico3297]

Great to see you here pastor Hixon. Warm greetings from a Methodist from Chile.

[@bransonstoddard3310]

Rewatching again! This is so awesome guys, thank you Brothers!

[@Willwhite5809]

As a Reformed Anglican, I generally agree with James on much of what he said. I don't think Calvin would agree that someone who hasn't received the sign has received the "sacrament." In terms of baptismal regeneration, I agree with Ould's interpretation of the prayer book's position, but I would say that baptismal regeneration is normative in elect infants. James appears to be correct that the faith of the parents plays a major role and I agree.

[@Psalm144.1]

What do you mean by saying baptismal regeneration is normative? From an Anglican formularies perspective.

[@BenjaminAnderson21]

​@@Psalm144.1Baptism regenerates elect infants according to the BCP baptismal liturgy.

[@whatsgoingonwhy9096]

Like many of the more “reformed” priests today it seems David is actually looking to the radical reformation for theology than the Reformed theology that went into the prayer book, articles, and English reformation. They are baptists with a prayer book that they use, sometimes.

[@gregw8976]

Really enjoyed this discussion! looking forward to Pt 2.

[@y-vf7244]

Definitely do a part two.

[@byFaithJustified]

It's up

[@hexahexametermeter]

David's explanation of "receiving baptism rightly" is the most convoluted I have ever heard. How David views baptism has nothing to do with faith at all. It's all doubt and skepticism.

[@JoeThePresbapterian]

What a very interesting discussion! I'm now trying to catch up before the next one will be aired. Regarding the apostasy, Calvinists believe that the elect can fall away temporarily, but God will restore them back into faith, by which we receive the perfection of Christ's vindication before the Spirit.

[@Adam-pk2te]

1 Corinthians 4:15 refutes the “call no man father” point otherwise we have paul contradicting Christ

[@hexahexametermeter]

How is using an analogy of being like a father equal to telling the Corinthians to call him Father? Furthermore, given what you just said, does Jesus statement have ANY meaning at all then?

[@CYC_JP]

When can we have a part 2 of this debate? Just finished watching this and I'm eager for more!

[@TheOtherPaul]

Still seeking a convenient time. It was supposed to happen last month but an unfortunate family matter forced Rev. Ould to cancel.

[@byFaithJustified]

It's up now

[@johngillatt2740]

We have two Anglican churches in South Africa. The Anglican church of Southern Africa (formerly CPSA) in full communion with Cantebery. REACH (Reformed Anglican Church of Southern Africa) recognized by the diocese of Sidney. REACH is only Low Church. ACSA has both high church and Low Church components.

[@semperadiuvans]

I think this does show just how restrained Rev. James is in his Anglo-Catholicism compared to the voices which dominate that label. Whilst I personally see it as lamentable that the "Anglo-Catholic" identity is used in the Reformed Episcopal Church, given the historical baggage of that term, it is not as if the jurisdiction has become infested with Newmanites, rather it seems more that in emphasising the catholicity of the Church, a potentially unhelpful term has been adopted.

[@internetenjoyer1044]

yes if anglo catholicism just meant moderate ritualism with some lutheran elbow room when following the formularies it wouldnt be problematic

[@crossvilleengineering1238]

“Call no man father”. Classic. bulletproof argument against your own credibility.

[@bjw8806]

The issue over real presence really comes down to understanding Glorified Christ. That is the Christ we feast and partake in. The Glorified Christ is both physical and spiritual at the same time. Not confined to the pre Easter Christ in humanities limitations. Glorified can appear and disappear. Can allow St. Thomas to feel and touch his wounds. Can mask his identity. Can elevate to heaven. Can appear to Paul and teach him truly. Also the ancient understanding of spiritual was real and physical but not corporal. A spirit could inhabit a person and also wrestle with a man. So I believe a pneumatic ( spiritual) presence is sufficient if you mean a pre enlightenment era understanding of spiritual. Are we chewing on bones ? Absolutely not But we also aren’t drinking ghost fog either.

[@jamesharrison6845]

Orthodox, Chalcedonian theology provides that the human nature of Christ was and always will be distinct and unmixed with His divine nature. The human essence of Our Lord is dimensionally limited, occupying space, singular in quantity, etc. as much as ours is. Taking an unnecessarily carnal explanation of miracles and then attributing them to the glorified state is really not warranted and dangerously close to the papist excuse for their quasi-apotheosis of saints. It is a valid complaint that "spiritual" does not mean "metaphorical," and everyone who rails against any language of spiritual presence would no doubt hasten to add on any other topic that the spiritual realm is as real as the material. Really the problem in my eyes is focussing so intently on the elements of the sacrament, perhaps resulting from the medieval corruptions that entirely obscured every other part of the sacrament to make eating a wafer the singular point of communion. I think Rev. Ould had it in emphasizing the partaking of the heart. We already have communion with Christ in our heart, with the indwelling of the Spirit, eating of the bread of life through faith, and this sacrament is the richest expression of said reality, much in the way that a baptizand is not being baptized to receive regeneration, but to serve as sign and seal.

[@bjw8806]

@@jamesharrison6845 are you sure that what you described is the nature of the Glorified Christ ? If so please cite scripture or scriptural references of the Post Easter Christ ….. I do not disagree with you in the incarnation. But the Glorified Christ , the risen savior , even in his glorified humanity is something far far far different than we can quantify.

[@jamesharrison6845]

@@bjw8806 Read the accounts of the resurrected Christ at the end of in Luke and John and consider the many anti-docetic statements in the epistles. Christ was concerned to demonstrate even in His resurrected body that He was still a human, with flesh and wounds, and even so earthly a thing as a digestive system, and in point of fact it is quite important that Jesus was fully human, as especially in Hebrews (e.g. 2:17). Conversely there is no warrant to interpret the dominical miracles as testifying to some special abilities that we will be elevated to in glory. We will be raised incorruptible in the New Jerusalem, but to go much beyond that is to turn from speculation to imagination.

[@bjw8806]

@@jamesharrison6845 that’s not what I stated though. I stated how his post resurrection state is something different that we cannot comprehend. Only apprehend. While being human still , he is fully Glorified. His flesh is truly Gods human. Is spirit is truly Gods spirit. So his spirit and humanity is not subjected to any earthly human boundaries. Hence my examples of post resurrection Christ. So yes feasting on him something not as carnal as eating bone yet not as Casper the friendly Ghost like drinking spirit fog. It’s a status we don’t yet comprehend yet.

[@augustinian2018]

Communicatio idiomatum FTW. As the Lutherans say, “We hereby utterly condemn the Capernaitic eating of the body of Christ, as though His flesh were rent with the teeth, and digested like other food,” rather “the body and blood of Christ are received with the bread and wine … not in a Capernaitic [mode], but in a supernatural, heavenly mode.” Though the (confessional) Lutherans vehemently reject the use of the word ‘spiritual’ to describe this, ‘spiritual’ standing for Paul’s use of πνευματικος seems entirely appropriate.

[@beowulf.reborn]

1:23:00 Laying on of hands is not symbolic. It is through the laying on of hands that the Gift of the Spirit is passed on (1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6).

[@beowulf.reborn]

I have to side with Reverend James (the Baptist in me can't bring myself to call him Father 😅), that a person can absolutely be Regenerate without being Elect. And that apostacy/falling away from the faith is 100% Biblical.

[@Psalm144.1]

Well, it’s good that you are a Baptist then. That’s not the position of the Anglican confessional documents (formularies).

[@robbchristopher158]

I almost decided to become Catholic nowadays I want become Anglican but I have no city bus that travels to the church on Sundays. I might end up settling for the conservative Episcopal Church that's much closer or just go ahead and become Catholic.

[@johnturner170]

Excellent debate.

[@nate296]

Ugh, being a high church Calvinist is painful. I think this boils down to tolerating the Arminians, which shouldn’t have been done. Basically the Arminians came to dominate the high church party because they couldn’t really be low church until the advent of 20th century Charismaticism. Meanwhile, especially in the States, most Reformed Anglicans just became Presbyterian or some other branch of Reformed. So now holding to a strong view of the institutional church and the sacraments AND the Doctrines of Grace is basically a weirdo position and more often upheld by the continental reformed.

[@jamesharrison6845]

The Arminians have long held sway in the High Church because from the turn of the 17th century onward the worst elements of the prelatial party have had as their primary concern preferment and currying royal favor, and did not discern in which topics they would dispute with Puritans, dissenters, and other disfavored brethren (or worse, under (crypto-)papist kings, deliberately undermined Protestant Orthodoxy). I'm not sure what you mean by "Arminians [..] couldn't really be low church," though; Charles Wesley's bizarre experiment of a church and the slide into apostasy of tolerated brethren show that Arminianism was at home in the low church.

[@nate296]

@@jamesharrison6845 Ok, do you want to have a discussion or just rehash political differences from the 17th century?

[@jamesharrison6845]

@@nate296 I just have a prediliction for historical theology and wanted to add where and how I understood Arminianism to rise in the CoE (and outside, as the English dissenters clearly fell off much worse). I really respect Reformed Anglicans, especially those who manage to stave off neo-Evangelical influences, and I wish REC, REACH, and other similar bodies were leading the direction of the Anglican tradition broadly speaking to what I regard as the best, most orthodox expression of their faith, as seen in the 17th century churchmen who could comfortably number their church among the brotherhood of Reformed churches.

[@crossvilleengineering1238]

@Barely Protestant Greater probability David leaves for Presbyterianism or Reformed Baptist than James to Roman Catholicism

[@smccarthymi]

The Catechism as in the 1662 BCP: My Godfathers and Godmothers in my Baptism, wherein I was made a member of Christ, the childe of God, and an inheritour of the kingdom of heaven.

[@AdithiaKusno]

As a subdeacon in Byzantine Catholic who grew up in a Dutch Calvinist tradition I am curious if Anglicans agree with Calvin that while two natures inseparably united to the person of Logos but at consecration Calvin argued only divinity present at the chalice while the body and blood physically localized in heaven. Luther condemned Calvin view because it denies communicatio idiommata where the body and blood are deified to be present in the chalice because where the person is He is always in two natures. This way Luther argues the deified humanity of the Logos incarnate has power to be bilocal both in heaven seated at the Father's right hand and present in the chalice. St Cyril in his second letter to Nestorios wrote that the Eucharist is an unbloody sacrifice.

[@jonathansmith336]

Sacraments and the Incarnation must be understood together. In both conversations, it is a wrestling with the human and divine joined in reality and mysteriously or miraculously.

[@jonathansmith336]

Is it possible that the Eucharist functions on two levels as it were, one to draw us in our present human condition into a recognition that we are now being drawn into the sphere of Jesus' earthly ministry, i,e. the physicality of it's meaning in the here and now, and at the same time we feast by faith on the trajectory of our journey in the post resurrection of the risen body of Christ? There's something about all our arguments that ends up causing us to miss the point(s) we are invited to see, experience, and live into and out of.

[@benduckitt6031]

The Baptists here are laughing because the way the 39 Articles have been written if you remove the last sentence you are affirming the Baptist's position. The way we Baptist's would say it is that their needs to be faith in the one who is baptised.

[@Real_LiamOBryan]

The gates of Hell will not prevail against the church, to me, seems to either mean that Hell will not be able to withstand the assault against it or that Hell will no longer be able to keep people in. I don't see how it has anything to do with error, or apostasy, or generations within the church, or any of that type of thing. Please, everybody, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[@elifritts]

The federal visions objectivity of the covenant would help both of them.

[@junesilvermanb2979]

Anglo-Catholicism comprises beliefs and practices that emphasise the Catholic heritage and identity of the various Anglican churches. The term was coined in the early 19th century, although movements emphasising the Catholic nature of Anglicanism already existed. Particularly influential in the history of Anglo-Catholicism were the Caroline Divines of the 17th century, the Jacobite Nonjuring schism of the 17th and 18th centuries, and the Oxford Movement, which began at the University of Oxford in 1833 and ushered in a period of Anglican history known as the "Catholic Revival". A minority of Anglo-Catholics, sometimes called Anglican Papalists, consider themselves under papal supremacy even though they are not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church. Such Anglo-Catholics, especially in England, often celebrate Mass according to the Mass of Paul VI and are concerned with seeking reunion with the Roman Catholic Church. Members of the Roman Catholic Church's personal ordinariates for former Anglicans created by Pope Benedict XVI are sometimes unofficially referred to as "Anglican Catholics".

[@Psalm144.1]

Calling an Anglican priest, “Father,” is an innovation that began in the 1950s-1960s. The most common term used to be Mr. and their last name. Roman Catholics started it long before to differentiate themselves from Anglicans. Using it is just wanting to copy the Papists.

[@crossvilleengineering1238]

It’s unfortunate how anyone with a phone can spread such false information. Anglicans called priests and Bishops Father long before 1950-1960 my friend. You can do a simple search through pdf texts of Anglican pastors and writers going way back into the 1800s and find commonly the use of “Right Reverend Father in God” addressed in letters to Bishops.

[@augustinian2018]

Things I learned from this discussion: (1) Some Anglicans affirm eternal security (I was *exceedingly* surprised by that), reject baptismal regeneration, and some even reject even the Calvinist sense of the real presence. I’d made comments on this channel the other day blowing off Zwingli on the Lord’s Supper under the assumption that was more or less a given/mark of unity among Anglicans-regretting that flippancy now. On a similar note, I wish there’d been more of a discussion about theological method and the role of the church fathers in Anglican theology as the Anglicans I’ve been around so far really don’t flinch much at the theology of the major 2nd century fathers and subscribe to canon of Vincent of Lérins. Curious if that’s a fluke of me living near Nashotah House, something more unique to American Anglicanism, or something that just went unstated in this discussion. (2) Reformed Anglicans (David at least) may be mischaracterizing Lutheran theology to the same extent that Lutherans mischaracterize Reformed theology in general. Part of why I made the jump from Lutheranism to Anglicanism was that Lutherans so frequently mischaracterize their theological opposition, whereas Anglicans (the ones I’ve been reading, at least) seemed to have a strong, firsthand handle on Lutheran thought (directly from the Lutheran confessions, Luther, Melanchthon, Chemnitz, and Gerhard’s major works, in many cases), or unintentionally be largely in agreement, e.g., N.T. Wright on several topics like a both/and view of the atonement, baptismal imputation, inaugurated eschatology, new creation, vocation, and rejection of eternal security. I’m also getting the sense for the first time that some of N.T. Wright’s Reformed detractors may be fellow Anglicans. Regardless, David’s repeated claims to be speaking on behalf of the reformers in opposition to James while ignoring the fact that James’s stances never stepped beyond those of the actual Lutheran reformers was frankly offensive and reminiscent of the worst smarminess I remember from Lutherans who’d refer to the Reformed as fanatics behind closed doors (obviously there’s a lot of banter in good fun-that’s not what I’m referring to-I’m more just strictly referring to the attitude about who are and are not among ‘the reformers’).

[@calvinsbeardbyorthochogang2400]

I consider myself a reformed Anglican however I agree that we must be careful when arguing about opposing views. One issue I have is that as a reformed Anglican we cannot just quote Calvin, as he isnt the only reformer. I would argue the Peter Martyr Vermigli is the one that maybe more helpful with regards to the Eucharist as he taught in oxford and had disputations with roman catholics on this issue. You can actually purchase a book on these disputations. Henry Bullinger and Martin Bucer are relevant as well not just Calvin in terms of the influence upon the Anglican church under Archbishop Cranmers care.

[@augustinian2018]

@@crossvilleengineering1238 The idea that someone who receives a valid baptism into the church is not regenerate member of the church is a bit strange to me. I know Reformed theology only in outline, though, so I’m definitely still trying to get a handle on how the theology is articulated and defended so that I can try to give it a fair shake (while admitting that my upbringing with Lutheran Reformation theology predisposes me Anglo-Catholic theology).

[@augustinian2018]

@@calvinsbeardbyorthochogang2400 Definitely wasn’t meaning to suggest all Reformed theology is the same-I was more or less using Calvin as a benchmark/reference point in the same way I’d use Luther for sacramental unionism, Aquinas for transubstantiation, and Zwingli for memorialism, despite there being variance within each camp (e.g., Luther, Chemnitz, and Gerhard all having differing views on the sacramental union despite agreement on some core principles). That said, I do need to get around to reading both the Swiss and English reformers in depth-I’m primarily a patristics and contemporary biblical studies guy as far as my theology reading goes, but have been wanting to do a more in-depth study of the Reformation outside Germany at some point (at this point I really only know the Lutheran reformers firsthand). I’m in the somewhat ironic position of having previously thought Anglo-Catholicism was basically uniform in semblance to John Henry Newman, only to become Anglican and find that the Anglo-Catholics (that I’ve met) are more or less Lutheran on the dominical sacraments with more smells and bells (generally).

[@augustinian2018]

@@crossvilleengineering1238 I’ve definitely seen a strong endorsement of baptismal regeneration in the ACNA (in conversations and via the prayer book language), which you seem to be confirming extends through to the REC by extension. My impression in the past had been that when one referred to Reformed positions on baptism that generally excluded from them would be baptismal regeneration, by which I mean the concept the recipient of a valid, sound baptism is now spiritually reborn and/or now belongs to the saving ark of God’s covenantal family as a result of God’s work in and through that baptism. Would you say it is generally true of Reformed theology (at least today) that baptismal regeneration is rejected, but not true of Anglican Reformed theology and perhaps classical Reformed theology as well? (For clarity, in Lutheran thought, the distinction between sign and signified is really only invoked in older patterns of literal hermeneutics, and I must admit that the slogan “outward sign of an inward change” still makes me uncomfortable; I omitted it from the above as a result of some of the apparent semantic drift of the word ‘sign’ among the Reformed over the centuries, if I’m understanding the trend correctly.)

[@nate296]

I am not sure why this should be "exceedingly surprising" given that the Church of England sent 7 delegates to the Synod of Dordt and 5 of the 7 affirmed the findings of the Synod, which included eternal security.

[@williambenjamin9238]

This is a really stupid comment so I apologise beforehand but if David says ‘nutted out’ one more time lol what on earth does that mean

[@TheOtherPaul]

LOL it's a British/Aussie thing; just means to find an answer or details for something, e.g. to 'nut out' a schedule for the week.

[@barelyprotestant5365]

@@TheOtherPaul definitely don't say that here, if you ever visit the US.

[@Real_LiamOBryan]

@@barelyprotestant5365 What do you think about the Harrowing of Hell passage, as the word "harrowing" suggests, being about Hades not being able to withstand the attack of the Church, or at least about it no longer being able to hold people in (cf. Matthew 12:40, 16:18, 27:50-54; Acts 2:24, 31; Ephesians 4:9; 1 Peter 3:18-19, 4:6;)? This is how I've seen the passage, sand I don't understand how people think the passage, taking it in its context, is about preventing error in the Church, or even about the apostasy of an entire generation (except that, as you would probably agree, the gates of Hades not prevailing seems to imply that there will be no generation that is entirely apostate--but this would not be the meaning of the passage, just an implication of the passage). Really would love your thoughts on this. I really respect your opinions and think that you seem more often right than wrong to me.

[@sandromnator]

Both were good, james had some cringe opinions tho(molinism delenda est)

[@sssimplydave]

Fascinating conversation... From my perspective, I think it's unfortunate that Reformed would be one's primary identity over Catholic. Reformed theology has theological treasures to offer, though if they're not supplemented with the theological consensus of the whole Church, of the Ancient, Medieval and Reformational Church, I'm afraid true catholicity is lost.

[@Psalm144.1]

But Reformed Anglicans believe they’re the truly “Catholic” ones.

[@Iffmeister]

I would argue James isn't really Anglo-Catholic, more Old High Church Anglican imo

[@NnannaO]

Would you mind explaining the difference? Just getting into this discussion and I don't understand the terminology

[@kerygmacatolicoevangelico3297]

I believe that too. He may be as well a high church reformed minister.

[@Iffmeister]

​@@NnannaOAnglo-Catholic tends to mean Roman theology pre-papacy minus the papacy. Old High Church means Protestant Anglican theology but with a high (the original) view of the Sacraments and high liturgy

[@NnannaO]

@@Iffmeister Thanks. I have another question if you don't mind. Is it possible to hold to mainly Eastern Orthodox distinctives except for their belief that they are the only true Church and be Anglo-Catholic? Is that a thing? Is it possible for that to be a thing?

[@tiberiusmagnificuscaeser4929]

@@NnannaO Anglo-Orthodoxy perhaps? Lutherans hold to a number of beliefs that are fairly similar to EO distinctives (Dr Jordan Cooper has written extensively about the Lutheran understanding of Theosis, and Lutherans often hold to a kind of soft-Palamism in regards to the essense-energies distinction), although they are obviously very different and have their own distinctives as well.

[@nate296]

Wait, does James actually think eternal security was invented in the 19th Century? That's ridiculous.

[@jamesharrison6845]

"Charles Stuart died to keep the church episcopal" is another stinker, although one with a history. The ones who cared about reforming a preserved national church were the Presbyterians, who were also pro-monarchy and not coincidentally out of power when the king had his head lopped. The Independents (i.e. Cromwell's party, who actually did the deed) mostly just didn't like the idea of the church having power over them, which is why they offered to keep the church unchanged but stripped of power in negotiations. The Independents executed Charles because they were outraged that he was not only extremely slippery in negotiating with them, he broke deals under the table with foreign powers, and particularly Scots to invade England for him while he flew the white flag. It was this second time that blood was spilled on English soil that cost Charles Stuart his head.

[@augustinian2018]

@@jamesharrison6845 According to a member of my family who was really into genealogy, one of my paternal ancestors was actually one of the signers of Charles I’s death warrant-John Jones of Maesygarnedd, a Welsh Puritan who later married one of Cromwell’s sisters. (I’m not particularly proud of that regicide, mind you.)

[@tophatt5706]

I can see where he's going with the 3 fold position. It's not biblical, and we should test our traditions with scripture. The 1500 oracle was written with mainly the Latin vulgate as the main source and it could be extra baggage carried from Rome.

[@y-vf7244]

@ Barely Protestant - Where can one purchase the Pusey book on Real Presence? Thank you. PS Praying for your future.

[@calvinsbeardbyorthochogang2400]

Nashota House Press

[@tophatt5706]

It seems there's often a different perspective on what context the "church" is being used whenever reading articles, church fathers, etcetera. Church as a small local body of believers, or the body of christ. The people taking it as the body of christ seem to always lean more Roman Catholic.

[@tophatt5706]

@Bb Dl I didn't say when reading the Bible. There's the context of referring to your local church that is the body of christ, and then there's the concept every church being the body of christ. On top of that is whether you believe in independent local churches that are self governed, or church universal under 1 monarchy.

[@mjramirez6008]

@@tophatt5706 could you kindly cite the verse? thank you!

[@tophatt5706]

@@mjramirez6008 that was taken out of context, i'll try and find a others. My main point, is there are 2 definitions of church. Knowing what definition is being used is important. Local body ( visible local church), universal ( whole body of christ past present and future).

[@tophatt5706]

I don't think it says what you think it says 🤣 Hebrews doesn't mention the apostate being elect or regerate. It's more like an uneven yoked marriage, where the unbeliever benefits from the grace of the believing spouse.They left us to show that there are not of us.....but yet they experienced the life of a true believer without actually having true faith in what was being experienced.

[@jamesharrison6845]

It's a point where covenant theology and other Reformed distinctives are quite useful. Under the external administration of the covenant but not (necessarily, depending on who is in consideration) partaking of the substance thereof: signum; res. The good reverend is muddling the two, as the papists after the Thomists do, in trying to make the sign the efficient cause of the thing signified.

[@SantiagoAaronGarcia]

So Hebrews 6 and 10 are not enough to show that limited atonement, irresistible Grace, and perseverance of the saints are inconsistent doctrines? Acts 7:51-52? Matthew 23:37? Acts 17? 1 Timothy 2 and 4? If that is not enough to show the inconsistency of Calvinistic soteriology, then nothing could be enough

[@Himmiefan]

They're both drowning in their own rules and traditions. Neither has a real grasp on true Christianity.

[@barelyprotestant5365]

Your mom doesn't have a real grasp on Christianity.