And that's without a low-talker in the mix.
Harley, don't know if you're a Seinfeld fan or not, but didn't want to exclude you, if you are.
P.S. Dr. E., I tried to find a picture of her, but couldn't.
Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
The granting of indulgences is doctrinally sound. The sale of indulgences has been condemned by Trent and is no longer allowed.
"And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me." -- Luke 22:19
But Calvin's words are worth repeating, and thanks for posting them.
"...the devil has introduced the fashion of celebrating the Supper without any doctrine, and for doctrine has substituted ceremonies partly inept and of no utility, and partly dangerous, having proved the cause of much mischief. To such an extent has this been done, that the Mass, which in the Popish Church is held to be the Supper, is, when well explained, nothing but pure apishness and buffoonery. I call it apishness, because they there counterfeit the Lord's Supper without reason, just as an ape at random and without discernment imitates what he sees done."
I intended to ping only you to this post, but restraint was never my strong suit. And it's good for us Protestants to see exactly how John Calvin felt about the perversion of the Lord's Supper (which you thoughtfully posted), both by those who would demean its significance and others who inflate the sacrament into raucous paganism.
The scriptures say no such thing. It does not say that a Dove descended upon the Lord and that the Dove was an accidental appearance of the Holy Spirit. It says that the Holy Spirit appeared and "descended like a dove".
In order to get to your interpretation, the scriptures would have said that he saw a dove descend and that it was, in fact, the Holy Spirit. None of the gospels state anything like that. They are all in agreement that John saw the Holy Spirit "descend like a dove." Nowhere does it say he saw a dove descend. The scriptures merely state the manner in which the Spirit descended. The Holy Spirit did not become a dove, nor did it take on the substance of a dove nor was there the accidental appearance of a dove. The Holy Spirit appeared as The Holy Spirit and visibly descended "like a dove."
If Calvin stated that the Holy Spirit appeared in the physical form and substance of a dove, then Calvin was wrong. The scriptures say no such thing. It is an illogical stretch to turn that verse into some apologetic for the bodiliy presence of Christ in the eucharist.
Why must every speck of wine spilled or bread crumb dropped during the mass be consumed immediately by the priest?
What's the fear here?
Did I miss something?
I don't have any complaints with the Orthodox because I can't find any errors like this in their history. They are at least consistent. They are willing to step up to the plate and say they make changes throughout the years, adjusting Church doctrine. They believe this authority was handed down so how can I argue with that. This is their historical belief. If they said, "Well, we believed that 100 years ago but on further reflection we believe such-n-such to be a great truth." what can I say?
But the Catholics with all this wacky, "Apostalistic Tradition matching the scripture" is nonsense. Their history doesn't support this statement. You claim the Church makes infallible decisions guided by the Spirit, and then can't explain the clear truth that not all decisions by the Catholic Church have been infallible. And that is a historical fact.
You're only fooling yourself.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
The issue is spelling of "jo kus" as "jokus" which has become habitual. This is an act of disrespect for a fellow Freeper and I called Harley on it. If he assures us he did not mean it in a derogatory way, this is fine with me as long as he renders jo kus's screen name, and everyone else's properly in the future
A question now arises, why did the Spirit at that time appear in the form of a dove? We must always hold that there is a correspondence between the sign and the reality. When the Spirit was given to the apostles, they saw cloven tongues of fire, (Acts 2:3,) because the preaching of the gospel was to be spread through all tongues, and was to possess the power of fire. But in this passage God intended to make a public representation of that mildness of Christ of which Isaiah speaks in lofty terms, 'The smoking flax he will not quench, and the bruised reed he will not break,' (Isaiah 42:3.) It was then, for the first time, that the Spirit was seen descending on him; not that he had formerly been destitute of him, but because he might be said to be then consecrated by a solemn rite. For we know that he remained in concealment, during thirty years, like a private individual, because the time for his manifestation was not yet come; but when he intended to make himself known to the world, he began with his baptism. At that time, therefore, he received the Spirit not only for himself, but for his people; and on that account his descent was visible, that we may know that there dwells in him an abundance of all gifts of which we are empty and destitute. This may easily be inferred from the words of the Baptist; for when he says, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, it is he who baptizeth with the Spirit, his meaning is, that the reason why the Spirit was beheld in a visible form, and remained on Christ, was, that he might water all his people with his fullness. What it is to baptize with the Spirit I have already noticed in a few words; namely, that he imparts its efficacy to baptism, that it may not be vain or useless, and this he accomplishes by the power of his Spirit."(John 1:32) "I saw the Spirit, descending like a dove." This is not a literal but a figurative mode of expression; for with what eyes could he see the Spirit? But as the dove was a certain and infallible sign of the presence of the Spirit, it is called the Spirit, by a figure of speech in which one name is substituted for another; not that he is in reality the Spirit, but that he points him out, as far as human capacity can admit. And this metaphorical language is frequently employed in the sacraments; for why does Christ call the bread his body, but because the name of the thing is properly transferred to the sign? especially when the sign is, at the same time, a true and efficacious pledge, by which we are made certain that the thing itself which is signified is bestowed on us. Yet it must not be understood that the dove contained the Spirit who fills heaven and earth, (Jeremiah 23:24,) but that he was present by his power, so that John knew that such an exhibition was not presented to his eyes in vain. In like manner, we know that the body of Christ is not connected with the bread, and yet we are partakers of his body.
I don't get the reference either.
And that's without a low-talker in the mix.
Harley, don't know if you're a Seinfeld fan or not, but didn't want to exclude you, if you are.
P.S. Dr. E., I tried to find a picture of her, but couldn't.
'The smoking flax he will not quench, and the bruised reed he will not break,' (Isaiah 42:3.)
How beautiful, Dr. E.
Interesting that you would call "HarleyD" on using "jokus" when you call him "Harley" instead of "HarleyD". How do you know he isn't deeply and personally offended by that?
I have always referred to jo kus as jokus. If jokus takes offense at that then I'm sorry. I am referred to as PM or Marlowe and I find no offense in it. I probably never refer to HarleyD as HarleyD in a post, but always as Harley. Nobody ever refers to Dr. Eckleburg as anything other than Dr. Eck or Doc or some shortened version. I have to look up the spelling everytime I ping her, so I'm not about to use her screen name when I'm typing my posts.
If anyone is going to call anyone on the spelling of another freeper's name it should be that particular freeper. This is the first time I've seen anyone complain and it isn't jo kus who's doing the complaining. Frankly I have no idea why anyone named jo kus would be offended by being called jokus. It is his or her screen name. I haven't a clue what it means and I don't really care to know.
So call me Marlowe or call me PM or call me "that idiot" or call me "hey you". Just don't call me late for dinner.
No one is making fun of jo kus' name, least of all Harley, who has discussed this thread with gentlemanly, Christian charity for six months.
Sometimes when posters are at a loss for a sound argument, they go looking for slights where there is none. I hope that's not what you're doing, annalex. You're a much better debater than this stunt.
When I signed up for my FR name, little did I realize it could be shortened to Eck or Dr.Eck...
Yuck. 8~)
No scripture says "spiritual". A whole lot of disciples left Christ over this point (John 6).
how John Calvin felt about the perversion of the Lord's Supper
How he felt I do not care to discuss. It is how he read the scripture that I find contemptible.
Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him. Bring forth the blind people that have eyes, and the deaf that have ears... I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God. Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it?" -- Isaiah 43:2;7-8;12-13"When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee: when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee...
***Why must every speck of wine spilled or bread crumb dropped during the mass be consumed immediately by the priest?
What's the fear here?***
Don't want church mice to nibble on it and wind up in Heaven do ya?
To salvation faith and repentance are what matters, not charity (though charity will be produce through salvation and its affect on the heart). These two elements, faith and repentance, are the complete grace of God. There is nothing man can do to acquire either one without the grace and selection of God the father.
To sum up: you have free will, but that will would 100% of the time lead you to choose your own damnation over the blood of Jesus. However, God shows special grace to those he wills allowing them to accept the gift which he made on the cross and through his resurrection from the dead. He doesn't violate our will, but he changes and alters it through factors that are so much above our understanding, until it conforms to the outcome that he selected in eternity past.
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:44.
See that? Unless the father draws us, we do not have it within our sinful natures to come to Christ.
"And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified." Romans 8:28-30.
He predestined our calling. There was nothing we could do to ascertain the calling.
Jesus concluded the parable of the wedding banquet with: "For many are invited, but few are chosen." Matthew 22:14. The keyword there is chosen. He chose us that we could choose him.
Or take Romans 11. He cut, he grafted the branches. The branches could not be grafted in of their own volition, but rather were grafted in according to the higher will of God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.