Read John 6 carefully yourself. Do not look at the party line. Then, after actually reading the text, ask yourself if it is arguing for a guy in a fancy bathrobe with a big hat waving his arms around and chanting latin (”I can play dominos better than you can”) and that somehow causes biscuits and wine to become Jesus. That is what we mean when we say the Catholic Church imposes its meaning and intent upon the text (isogesis, not exogesis), in order to get a result they need from the text. Shameful.
And, yes, I don’t think Calvin’s view of that matter is that consequential. What difference did it make in your life today? I can tell you the transubstantiation racket makes a lot of difference to a lot of people today when they think they are eating Christ’s body and drinking His blood in REALITY. Now, that’s heresy. Repent Rome!!
Well it's certainly not arguing for Dutchboy88 waving his arms around and chanting "Repent Rome!"
That is what we mean when we say...
Who's this "we"? Are you the pope of this "we" community, whatever it is?
...the Catholic Church imposes its meaning and intent upon the text (isogesis, not exogesis), in order to get a result they need from the text. Shameful.
"I'm startin' with the man in the mirror!"
And, yes, I don’t think Calvin’s view of that matter is that consequential. What difference did it make in your life today? I can tell you the transubstantiation racket makes a lot of difference to a lot of people today when they think they are eating Christ’s body and drinking His blood in REALITY. Now, that’s heresy. Repent Rome!!
I'm guessing, ex-Catholic? This kind of invective is usually associated with exorcisms and ex-Catholics with an immovable chip on their shoulders.
Ha! Ok, let's just dial back on the condescension a smidge and come to terms with a couple of things here.
It's interesting to me that you think that just because I radically disagree with your interpretation I haven't read it (or at least not read it carefully.) I don't see Reformation theology in it, so therefore *I must just not be reading it right*.
When actually, not only have I read it, I read it closely *in the Greek* and made a word-for-word study of it with my old Liddell-Scott lexicon. And here's the kick in the knickers--I am even MORE convinced now that the doctrine of the Eucharist is taught in it explictly and unambiguously. Which, actually, is the same conclusion of the Church Fathers who spoke Greek natively, and the Greek Orthodox who still speak the same language today.
Which is why I say again that neither you nor Calvin have any standing to accuse anyone of heresy on this or any other matter--*by the tenets of your own theology*. If you really believe Sola Scriptura and the perspicuity of the text, I have just as much right to my informed interpretation as you do yours, and *neither of us* can claim to be infallibly inspired on it. The most you can say is "I don't see it" and leave it at that.
AMEN, DUTCHBOY!!