PR,
PR,
Ah. That makes sense, I suppose, in a perverse way.
It just seems so…peculiar to me that non-Catholic Christians have to decide, each and every time they listen to their pastor’s preaching, whether it conforms to their own understanding of Scripture. IMHO, they are creating a religion in their own image and likeness, not following the Word of God. That is why there are now over 30,000 different Christian denominations. Each time a fallible man disagrees with his fallible pastor’s interpretation of Scripture, he has to leave and form his own church! 
)And on and on it goes my dear.Ah. That makes sense, I suppose, in a perverse way.
So they attend services at a Calvary chapel, listen to their fallible pastor’s interpretation of a few verses of Scripture, determine whether it conforms to their own fallible interpretation of Scripture, and then decide whether to accept their preacher’s teaching or leave and form their own church?
(Yes, I am playfully mocking, just a little.
Since you continue to insist that the actual words of Scripture do not mean what they say, there is no point in continuing the discussion.
Since you continue to believe the false statements you make represent the position of the Church more accurately than her official teachings, there is no point in continuing the discussion.
I’m not asking you to care about my qualifications, I’m asking you to stop patronizing me. You have repeatedly suggested that I and others here haven’t read or studied the Scripture. Every single statement I made had a Scripture reference, because I know your type. What you mean, apparently, is that the only study of Scripture that has value is the study directed by your hero.
And aren’t you fortunate that the Church compiled and preserved that book so you can read it?
I’m officially giving up trying. Enjoy your ignorance, but don’t try to hoodwink others. Better to have a millstone placed around your neck and be tossed into the sea (Mark 9:42).
JL: I really don’t know, unless it’s because the can make up history or whatever and it doesn’t reflect on their religion, that has been my experience. It also makes it easier to criticise others when you don’t have to defend your own religion for the same thing. The first time I debated a Calvary Chapel person was about 5 or 6 years ago. He would never tell us the name of his non-denomination. Long story short his aunt (who was Catholic) but never debated. She just posted inspirational Catholic material. She told one of the ladies who read and commented on her posts. In my experience they use RCC for the Church, don’t want to be called Protestants, use fiction history, if you ask if they are Calvary they will ignore the question, etc… They have been around only since the 1960’s.
But Pat, you made the claim that the Apostles did not celebrate the Lord’s Supper in a “transubstantive way”. Are you now saying that you have no evidence for the assertion and you just made it up? That is what it sounds like to me. As far as evidence for the claim that they did celebrate it in a “transubstantive way” we have the clear words of Christ at the Last Supper “This is my body…This is …my blood” which would be evidence supporting the claim. We also have the prophetic words of Christ from John 6 which support the “transusbstantive” claims. What we have absolutely no evidence for anywhere - Scripture or in the early Church - is that the Lords Supper is merely a symbolic recollection. No one ever says that Pat, and so we must wonder who invented it and why.
Well, it either that or it is you who feels the need to invent a context which justifies altering the clear statement he made: they dont confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of Jesus.
You are in denial Pat. He says the Eucharist is the flesh of our Lord; the flesh that suffered and died for our sins.
Im sorry Pat, but this speculation of yours does nothing to alter what he said regarding the Eucharist. Claiming the Eucharist as the flesh of Christ would be a foolish and ridiculous attempt to defend the doctrine of the Incarnation of Christ. If someone doesnt beleive that Christ actually died on the cross, how would claiming the Eucharist defend against their heresy? It wouldnt, unless, of course Ignatius believed that the Eucharist was the same flesh that died for us - that might explain his bringing it up. So your argument makes no sense at all as an attempt to alter the literal understanding of what Ignatius says - in fact in strengthens the argument that Ignatius believed the Eucharist to be the same flesh which died on the cross for us. That, of course, is exactly what he said and meant.
I dont find it unfortunate - his words are perfectly clear. His comments parallel Paul’s almost verbatum: you must recognize the body (Paul); the Eucharist (is) flesh of our Lord (Ignatius)
Oh this one is real charitable isn’t he?
(Not you NHInsider, the other guy.)This is exactly what I found on the other forum I was on with all those younger people that were asking questions. They had no knowledge of religion and some were trying to teach themselves with their Bibles. Some people call it spiritualism but it can get pretty hocus pocus since everyone decides on their own what they believe, no rules or set of values. Very scary in my opinion.
I have a friend that was singled out during one of their services. She was attending with her husband who is a member. She was trying to be fair since he goes to Mass with her. Seems the husbands pastor hates Catholics. This is why I love to suggest Scott Hahn and his wife to people. He was a minister and teacher in his old religion and loved the scriptures. He also hated the Catholics. I heard him talk (on cassette) years ago and his convertion story is awesome. He and his wife studied scripture and eventually became Roman Catholic. His friends (who knew how he felt about the Catholics) couldn’t believe it. He founded the St. Paul Center for Biblical Study (salvationhistory.com). He has his own website also: scotthahn.com/ .
The Calvary Chapels around here where I live seem to be some sort of Baptist sect. Don’t know if they are actually associated with the Baptists or not?
JL: They have some similarities, yet very different.
If you were in the least familiar with and understood the bible such a comment would not proceed from your mouth; so you speak volumes about yourself and about what you think of the Author of Scripture. Religion.
One who resorts to an ad hominem has likely run out of rational arguments. That you would make such an attack also speaks volumes.
You judge and wrongly at that because no Christian hates another. You recognize me? What?
It is not false but for your sake it is so you are welcome.
If you are a fallible interpreter of Scripture–and I’m quite certain that you are not claiming infallibility–then you are only offering your fallible interpretation of each and every verse that you cite.
Scripture is quite clear on the topic and I cannot help you cannot understand what Jesus and Paul has said because you have no ability to separate the spiritual from the fleshly at the appropriate times in Scripture. Only God can open the eye to the truth of His Word. The Gospel is so simple; yet so hard to reach and grasp, just as He said it would.
*Going back in time as early as the days of the Athanasian Creed, it was taught then that ***“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.” ***source: (Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 39) *
The evidence of 30,000 Christian denominations, each claiming their own differing understanding of the Gospel, tells you that your statement above is clearly FALSE.