Calvinism & "Smile, Jesus Loves You!"

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Idol, there are 1500 years supporting me regarding your churches utter abandonment of Christ.
Just according to you. Eye of the beholder. And you're legally blind.
Keep closing your eyes and plugging your ears. 1500 years of pushing pedophiles as priests and you ignore it.
idk anybody who defends that scandal. But while you raise the topic, do you believe that Christ's Passion and cross is sufficient to atone for even those sins, and the coverups too? Or is that beyond what He did?
 

MennoSota

New member
Just according to you. Eye of the beholder. And you're legally blind.
idk anybody who defends that scandal. But while you raise the topic, do you believe that Christ's Passion and cross is sufficient to atone for even those sins, and the coverups too? Or is that beyond what He did?
Keep your eyes wide shut, idol.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
I actually know my history while you close your eyes to it and follow Rome like a lemming off a cliff.
:chuckle:

OK. You "know your history." Good for you. I know history too, and I know Scripture. And where Scripture leaves off, the second half of the first century, history takes that baton, and we can see what Christ's, and the Apostles' plan was, we can see it working out. Why don't you have a bishop menno? The Bishop is biblical, and you don't have one, isn't that something you ought to be concerned about, what with you being a faithful Bible believer? You don't believe our Lord when He says, "This is My body," you don't have any bishop, geez menno, are you sure you're living your Christian life to the best of your ability here? You seem to be buying into what charlatans who make up stuff teach.
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
I answered your question. Get to your point.

No, you did not.

I'm asking you which piece of bread was the piece of bread to which you refer as "the Eucharist". Was it the piece of bread that Jesus divided and ate with His disciples on the occasion when He said, "This is my body...", or was it some other piece of bread?
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
No, you did not.

I'm asking you which piece of bread was the piece of bread to which you refer as "the Eucharist". Was it the piece of bread that Jesus divided and ate with His disciples on the occasion when He said, "This is my body...", or was it some other piece of bread?
The Eucharist. I told you I answered you. The Eucharist is perpetual until He returns, in remembrance of Him. That's the bread. I told you.
 

MennoSota

New member
:chuckle:

OK. You "know your history." Good for you. I know history too, and I know Scripture. And where Scripture leaves off, the second half of the first century, history takes that baton, and we can see what Christ's, and the Apostles' plan was, we can see it working out. Why don't you have a bishop menno? The Bishop is biblical, and you don't have one, isn't that something you ought to be concerned about, what with you being a faithful Bible believer? You don't believe our Lord when He says, "This is My body," you don't have any bishop, geez menno, are you sure you're living your Christian life to the best of your ability here? You seem to be buying into what charlatans who make up stuff teach.

Every church has a bishop. They are called by their biblical name...elders.
I believe Jesus was speaking figuratively when he said "this is my body." If he had been speaking literally he would have carved off some of his own flesh and given it to his disciples. Do you believe he carved off his flesh and then cut open a vein to drain a pint of his blood? Of course you don't. Even you aren't that naive...or are you?
Face it, you cling to a church that no longer is connected to Christ. Your church worships idols.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Every church has a bishop. They are called by their biblical name...elders.
:plain: Oh please. The Protestants have 'boards' of 'elders,' and you know that. They have 'pastors,' and 'elders,' even though from the start, the Church's pastors were the elders, and they were called bishops, overseers (all biblical). They were consecrated by the Apostles, and subsequent bishops were consecrated by bishops consecrated by the Apostles, such that every bishop can trace their lineage back to the Apostles themselves. Protestants don't have bishops, not valid bishops, not authentic pastors, no, they don't have access to that spring, it resides with the Catholic Church, and with the Orthodox churches alone. You can't invent a bishop. You can only go to the already extant bishops. Your church doesn't have an authentic pastor, not biblically, not according to the Scripture, not according to the whole Church history. You've got counterfeits, teaching some counterfeit "Christian" teachings. By the grace of God, much of what most Protestants teach is authentic/Apostolic, but it is by the grace of God.
I believe Jesus was speaking figuratively when he said "this is my body." If he had been speaking literally he would have carved off some of his own flesh and given it to his disciples. Do you believe he carved off
I believe the Bible.

The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? [by carving off some of his own flesh and giving it to us?] 53 Then Jesus said unto them, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him."

Catholicism doesn't believe what you say. 'The Jews' here wondered the same thing you're promoting, that He was being 'figurative,' but He squelches that notion right quick. He means it literally, and the earliest records we've got testify that that's what the earliest uniformly took Him to mean as well. They were accused by some of practicing cannibalism. That's not going to happen to people who think the Eucharist is 'figurative.'
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
The Eucharist. I told you I answered you. The Eucharist is perpetual until He returns, in remembrance of Him. That's the bread. I told you.

Telling me that you answered me and answering me are two very different things.

A piece of bread is perpetual? What, if anything, do you think you mean by that? Do you mean that it is perpetually a piece of bread, and so is never transubstantiated into God?
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Yep.
It surprises me how much the OP hates election, predestination and God's Sovereignty, exercised in His choosing.

Autonomy is something many wish to cling to and even demand to negotiate terms with God.

“There is no attribute of God more comforting to his children than the doctrine of Divine Sovereignty. Under the most adverse circumstances, in the most severe troubles, they believe that Sovereignty has ordained their afflictions, that Sovereignty overrules them, and that Sovereignty will sanctify them all.

There is nothing for which the children of God ought more earnestly to contend than the dominion of their Master over all creation—the kingship of God over all the works of his own hands—the throne of God, and his right to sit upon that throne.

On the other hand, there is no doctrine more hated by worldlings, no truth of which they have made such a football, as the great, stupendous, but yet most certain doctrine of the Sovereignty of the infinite Jehovah. Men will allow God to be everywhere except on his throne.

They will allow him to be in his workshop to fashion worlds and to make stars. They will allow him to be in his almonry to dispense his alms and bestow his bounties. They will allow him to sustain the earth and bear up the pillars thereof, or light the lamps of heaven, or rule the waves of the ever-moving ocean;

but when God ascends his throne, his creatures then gnash their teeth; and when we proclaim an enthroned God, and his right to do as he wills with his own, to dispose of his creatures as he thinks well, without consulting them in the matter, then it is that we are hissed and execrated, and then it is that men turn a deaf ear to us, for God on his throne is not the God they love.

They love him anywhere better than they do when he sits with his sceptre in his hand and his crown upon his head.”

- Src


Add to that is the fact that at every discussion site there usually appears a Jack McCall desperately seeking their fifteen minutes. ;)

AMR
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
I believe the Bible.

The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? [by carving off some of his own flesh and giving it to us?] 53 Then Jesus said unto them, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him."

Catholicism doesn't believe what you say. 'The Jews' here wondered the same thing you're promoting, that He was being 'figurative,' but He squelches that notion right quick. He means it literally, and the earliest records we've got testify that that's what the earliest uniformly took Him to mean as well. They were accused by some of practicing cannibalism. That's not going to happen to people who think the Eucharist is 'figurative.'

Specifically, who were "they" of whom you claim "they were accused by some of practicing cannibalism"? And, specifically, who were the "some" who so accused them? Also, what was the exact nature of the accusation of which you speak? I mean, whom were "they" specifically accused of having cannibalized? Did their accusers accuse them of magically turning a piece of bread into somebody and then eating that somebody, and then turning another piece of bread into that same somebody that the previous piece of bread had been magically turned into, and then eating that same somebody a second time, all over again, and then a third, and so on?
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
Autonomy is something many wish to cling to and even demand to negotiate terms with God.

“There is no attribute of God more comforting to his children than the doctrine of Divine Sovereignty. Under the most adverse circumstances, in the most severe troubles, they believe that Sovereignty has ordained their afflictions, that Sovereignty overrules them, and that Sovereignty will sanctify them all.

There is nothing for which the children of God ought more earnestly to contend than the dominion of their Master over all creation—the kingship of God over all the works of his own hands—the throne of God, and his right to sit upon that throne.

On the other hand, there is no doctrine more hated by worldlings, no truth of which they have made such a football, as the great, stupendous, but yet most certain doctrine of the Sovereignty of the infinite Jehovah. Men will allow God to be everywhere except on his throne.

They will allow him to be in his workshop to fashion worlds and to make stars. They will allow him to be in his almonry to dispense his alms and bestow his bounties. They will allow him to sustain the earth and bear up the pillars thereof, or light the lamps of heaven, or rule the waves of the ever-moving ocean;

but when God ascends his throne, his creatures then gnash their teeth; and when we proclaim an enthroned God, and his right to do as he wills with his own, to dispose of his creatures as he thinks well, without consulting them in the matter, then it is that we are hissed and execrated, and then it is that men turn a deaf ear to us, for God on his throne is not the God they love.

They love him anywhere better than they do when he sits with his sceptre in his hand and his crown upon his head.”

- Src


Add to that is the fact that at every discussion site there usually appears a Jack McCall desperately seeking their fifteen minutes. ;)

AMR

Did someone by the name of Jack McCall also barrage you with rational, Calvinism-damning questions which, to your embarrassment and frustration as a Calvinism huckster, you had to persistently stonewall against, so that it was obvious to every reader that you have no rational answers to them? ;)
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Telling me that you answered me and answering me are two very different things.

A piece of bread is perpetual? What, if anything, do you think you mean by that? Do you mean that it is perpetually a piece of bread, and so is never transubstantiated into God?
The bread is the body of Christ, and the cup is the blood of Christ. This is all part of the Eucharist being a sacrifice. He is offered on the altar to the Father, in reality, not in symbol. It's quite silly to a theological Catholic, to compare the Protestant 'figurative' and 'symbolic' biblical interpretation, with zero consultation with what the earliest signs of the Church's worship consisted of. In a sense the Passion was a figure or type, of Eucharist. Christ fulfilled certain prophecies in His Passion, and the Eucharist fulfills certain prophecies, one or more of them, in the Eucharist being a valid, Abel-like sacrifice, God Himself providing the Lamb (His Son; Isaac is the type of Son, Abraham is the type of Father; Abraham believes God raises the dead; which is the Apostolic teaching on why Abraham was willing to apply lethal force to his own son Isaac, he wasn't a sadist, he wasn't a terrible dad, he believed God raises the dead---that's the faith of Abraham).

At Mass this week we heard the Word of God, where Hebrews talks about Christ's Passion and cross being the one sacrifice for all. No further sacrifices are needed, ever, because of His Passion and cross, And, because of the Eucharist. His Passion and cross was Him being sacrificed on the altar to the Father, He was offered up to His Father, in it He fulfilled the Levitical priesthood's purpose. To underscore the finality of that old priesthood, He arranged 40 years later for the Roman armies commanded by General Titus to obliterate the old altar.

Now, there are valid altars to the Father in every church building where a valid priest validly celebrates the sacrifice of the Eucharist. God is worshiped now to the four corners of the world. He used to have one altar, in the temple, in the holy-of-holies, in Jerusalem. Now He's got valid altars in every inhabited continent.

Catholics in full communion are authorized to receive Holy Communion, which is eating the sacrifice, which is Really the body and blood of our Lord, because the sacrifice is valid, so it must be Him. And it doesn't make any sense at all that He would want us to celebrate a ritual commemorating Him in perpetuity. That's just silly to me, and it's no wonder that the practice of 'communion' in Protestant churches is performed once a month, and sometimes even less frequently.

Mormons use water instead of wine, I read somewhere. It doesn't matter if you use water or wine or juice, yours isn't the valid sacrifice anyway. Jesus is not becoming your elements of communion. This is why the authentic priesthood is necessary, because this is how we know the Eucharist is validly celebrated, because the right people are making the offering. It's exactly like the Levites being the valid priests for the ancestors of Jewish people. Part of the sacrifice being valid, was that the priest making the offering was from the tribe of Levi.

It may seem arbitrary that only validly ordained or consecrated priests or bishops can validly offer the sacrifice of the Eucharist, but it's less arbitrary than the old covenant's requirement to be a Levite. Any race can become a priest. You just have to be single and celibate. There was no way to change your tribe, just like there was no way if you are a Gentile, to change into a Jewish person.

Now, valid sacrifices are made to God all around the world, in every country, and in many of those countries, every day, but definitely every Sunday/Lord's Day. The Levitical high priest of the old covenant entered the holy-of-holies once per year. Christ Jesus's Passion and cross fulfilled that annual sacrifice for sins, once for all, and now, instead of once per year, the Eucharist/Mass is celebrated once per week minimum everywhere, and in many places the sacrifice is offered many times every week, many parishes in Boston and surrounding, have Mass seven times a week or more, so that anybody with odd schedules can regularly go to Mass weekly, and also anybody who can and wants to, can go to multiple Masses per week.

And when you're in full communion, you can validly eat and drink the offering made on the altar. That's really very special. And in order for the sacrifice to be valid, it must be Christ's body and blood, and that is why eating the bread and drinking the cup is such a solemn and special thing. And it's why Paul threatens you with violence, if you eat and drink unworthily. It will not go well for you if you do that, so if you're not sure if you're in full communion, then go to confession. That's what it's for. It's not for salvation, it's for eating the bread and drinking the cup. It's like dealing with spiritually radioactive materials, and if you're not properly suited up, in pressed wedding garments, you're going to be harmed. Don't do it if you're not in full communion.

We gather together in His name---far more than two or three of us---and He is there with us. Protestants think that means one thing, and Catholics know it's Communion. And Communion is what is specifically denoted when communion with the Church is the topic. If you can validly/safely receive the body and blood of the Lord, you are confirmed to be in full communion. If you know you're in full communion, then you are permitted to eat the bread and drink the cup.

If you are in full communion, you can eat and drink the body and blood of the Lord. Do you know who in the Old Testament could eat of the offering from the altar? And could they eat any blood? And compare with who gets to eat from the altar in Christianity, what about blood, and now compare to feeding the 5000. Christ's discourse on the Eucharist, pulled from Apostolic tradition by the Apostle John and committed to writing, occurred just after He fed the 5000. Did a single sacrifice feed 5000 Levitical priests? Not hardly. But Christ is able to feed 5000 with a small sacrifice. Who eats from the altar, in the old covenant? Compare to the New Testament, and the priesthood of all believers.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Specifically, who were "they" of whom you claim "they were accused by some of practicing cannibalism"?
The Church.
And, specifically, who were the "some" who so accused them?
They weren't Christians.
Also, what was the exact nature of the accusation of which you speak?
Cannibalism.
I mean, whom were "they" specifically accused of having cannibalized?
Chrestus.
Did their accusers accuse them of magically turning a piece of bread into somebody and then eating that somebody, and then turning another piece of bread into that same somebody that the previous piece of bread had been magically turned into, and then eating that same somebody a second time, all over again, and then a third, and so on?
I told you cannibalism.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Autonomy is something many wish to cling to and even demand to negotiate terms with God.

“There is no attribute of God more comforting to his children than the doctrine of Divine Sovereignty. Under the most adverse circumstances, in the most severe troubles, they believe that Sovereignty has ordained their afflictions, that Sovereignty overrules them, and that Sovereignty will sanctify them all.

There is nothing for which the children of God ought more earnestly to contend than the dominion of their Master over all creation—the kingship of God over all the works of his own hands—the throne of God, and his right to sit upon that throne.

On the other hand, there is no doctrine more hated by worldlings, no truth of which they have made such a football, as the great, stupendous, but yet most certain doctrine of the Sovereignty of the infinite Jehovah. Men will allow God to be everywhere except on his throne.

They will allow him to be in his workshop to fashion worlds and to make stars. They will allow him to be in his almonry to dispense his alms and bestow his bounties. They will allow him to sustain the earth and bear up the pillars thereof, or light the lamps of heaven, or rule the waves of the ever-moving ocean;

but when God ascends his throne, his creatures then gnash their teeth; and when we proclaim an enthroned God, and his right to do as he wills with his own, to dispose of his creatures as he thinks well, without consulting them in the matter, then it is that we are hissed and execrated, and then it is that men turn a deaf ear to us, for God on his throne is not the God they love.

They love him anywhere better than they do when he sits with his sceptre in his hand and his crown upon his head.”

- Src


Add to that is the fact that at every discussion site there usually appears a Jack McCall desperately seeking their fifteen minutes. ;)

AMR
The following is just an excerpt of Text 307 from the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church.'

Though often unconscious collaborators with God's will, [human beings] can also enter deliberately into the divine plan by their actions, their prayers and their sufferings.

Whether we are unconscious or unaware of it, or if we are deliberately cooperating with it, we are always doing what God wills, He is always in control, He always maintains His sovereignty, whether we are trying to go along with it or not.
 
Top